Was there a pope that wasn't a bishop previously?

[johnnykins]

Every single men under 80 are eligible to become pope, even without being ordained. Was there any case like this in Church history?

There is no age restriction on being eligible to be Pope. The age restriction you are thinking of is the age of a cardinal to be an elector at the start of the conclave.

 

[bben15]

You are correct. If a layperson was elected pope, he would first have to be ordained a priest, then a bishop, and then he could be made Pope. This could happen all in one day or over a course of several weeks.

He would first be ordained a deacon. Then he would be ordained a priest, then consecrated a bishop.

You can’t be a priest without first being a deacon.

 

[bilop]

That depends on when Peter actually became pope. I don’t think there is a definitive Church teaching on exactly when it occurred. If Peter became pope by Jesus calling him the rock upon which he would build his Church, then tjones80 is correct, as Peter was only ordained later.

Well, the Church didn’t exist until Pentecost, so Peter couldn’t be Pope before then. You need a Church to have a Pope.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Exactly. He’s not Pope until his installation. He can’t be installed until he’s ordained a bishop. He can’t be ordained a bishop if he’s married.

God Bless

 

[Elizium23]

Exactly. He’s not Pope until his installation. He can’t be installed until he’s ordained a bishop. He can’t be ordained a bishop if he’s married.

God Bless

Not true, a bishop becomes Pope immediately on his statement “I accept (the election)”. Anyone else becomes Pope immediately upon his episcopal ordination. No installation is needed, it is merely a formality.

 

[Neofight]

Every single men under 80 are eligible to become pope, even without being ordained. Was there any case like this in Church history?

Peter!

 

[drafdog]

In 752, Stephen, sometimes known as Stephen II. Died three days after his election having never received episcopal consecration. Some lists still include his name. The Vatican sanctioned his addition to the list of popes in the sixteenth century; however he was removed in 1961. He is no longer considered a pope by the Catholic Church.
This is admittedly an extreme case.

Reb Levi

 

[smichhertz]

And he was also married.

I believe Gregory the Great was not a bishop before becoming Pope.

I believe he was a widower.

 

[TMC]

I believe he was a widower.

Peter, you mean? I know some people say that, but I have never seen anything but speculation to support it. Certainly his wife was still alive at the time that Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Pope Fabian?..

Yes. My favorite Pope story ever.
Imagine, you are just some Christian, under persecution, you walk by some bishops and a bird lands on your head and BAM! You are Pope. Which is like a death sentence.

 

[smichhertz]

Peter, you mean? I know some people say that, but I have never seen anything but speculation to support it. Certainly his wife was still alive at the time that Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians.

You are correct about speculation. The problem is that there really isn’t any definitive texts to refer to on the subject. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything but speculation to go on. There isn’t anything definitive to be found on Peter’s wife anywhere. Were it not for the reference to his mother-in-law, everyone would probably have assumed he was never married. So we’re left to wonder and ponder what the situation really is.

Personally, I find it difficult to imagine that Peter’s wife was alive when he was called by Jesus. She would most likely have been mentioned somewhere in scripture. Therefore, I take the view point that Peter was a widower already at the time of being called by Jesus. But, of course, it’s just speculation.

In regards to 1 Cor. 9:5, you may find the following helpful: catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

From the ever reliable and never mistaken Wikipedia. Married Popes

Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospel verses Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31. Clement of Alexandria notes that “Peter and Philip begat children”[3] and writes: “When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them.”[4] In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter’s daughter is Saint Petronilla.[5][6]
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[7]
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders,[8] to a woman called Stephania, and had a daughter. His wife and daughter were still living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Church’s chief librarian.[9]
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three sons, who all became priests.[10]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking Holy Orders, and had two daughters, who both entered a convent.[11]

 

[JReducation]

You are correct. If a layperson was elected pope, he would first have to be ordained a priest, then a bishop, and then he could be made Pope. This could happen all in one day or over a course of several weeks.

I do not think you necessarily HAVE to be single. I doubt it would ever happen but I’m pretty sure the requirement is simply a Catholic male in good standing with the Church.

When a layman or a religious brother is elected to the papacy, he is ordained a bishop. He does not need to be ordained a deacon and then a priest. The Order of Bishop is the fullness of the priesthood.

St. Peter wasn’t a Bishop before becoming Pope.

Peter became a bishop at the moment that he is ordained by Christ.

I have seen this argument before, but I’m not sure that I buy it…
How can a layman be the Bishop of Rome? When a bishop is elected to the papacy, he becomes Pope the moment he accepts the election…but it makes absolutely no theological sense to assume that this is true of a layman elected to the papacy. The layman would be the Pope-elect and only receive the power of the office once he was consecrated a bishop. Catholics don’t believe that the papacy is some special fourth degree of holy orders distinct from the episcopate…every single power of the Pope is intrinsically tied to the office of the **Bishop **of Rome. The Pope is a bishop. He is the head bishop, but he is still a bishop - not something different.

If a layman is elected, he becomes the Bishop of Rome the moment he’s ordained a bishop. Between the election and the ordination the Chair continues to be vacant.

Also married men cannot be elected to the Order of Bishop in none of the 23 Catholic Churches nor any of the Orthodox Churches. It’s a matter of apostolic tradition. After the apostles, all other bishops were elected from among the celibate clergy. By the end of the 2nd century CE. there were no married bishops. John was the first celibate bishop, followed by Paul and so forth. The pope would have to change the law, but it would be difficult to justify, because none of the Churches with apostolic succession have had married bishops in 18 centuries.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Also married men cannot be elected to the Order of Bishop in none of the 23 Catholic Churches nor any of the Orthodox Churches. It’s a matter of apostolic tradition. After the apostles, all other bishops were elected from among the celibate clergy. By the end of the 2nd century CE. there were no married bishops. John was the first celibate bishop, followed by Paul and so forth. The pope would have to change the law, but it would be difficult to justify, because none of the Churches with apostolic succession have had married bishops in 18 centuries.

Is this article wrong on Pope Adrian II?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_II

It states he was married in his youth and that both his wife and daughter were alive during his election.

Here are some more sources
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Pope_Adrian_II

newadvent.org/cathen/01156a.htm

 

[YoungTradCath]

Alarm bells

How can a man “skip” diaconal and presbyteral ordination and go straight for episcopal?

I have never heard of such a thing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have always been fascinated by Papal history. It has been quite a ride! We have had father and son popes! Good Popes, bad Popes etc. It always is good to remember that when we think of our current string of Popes that the Church has endured much more than we have witnessed. People get all up in arms about Pope Francis changing this or that.
It is helpful to remember that there were times in history when one had to be “more Catholic than the Pope” just to be a good Catholic.

But to the OP. Yes. There have been popes that were not Bishops previously.

 

[smichhertz]

Wow! This is turning out to be a lot more complicated of a question to answer. I have to say, I think twf is on to something. How can a layman be Pope without first being ordained a bishop?

I’ve heard it said multiple times that a pope becomes pope when he accepts his papacy after being elected. However, it’s easily possible that there’s an assumption he is already a bishop. After all, it’s a pretty safe assumption in modern times. Besides, how can a non-bishop be pope? The pope is the bishop of Rome!

Certainly, a layman can be ordained a bishop, so I get how a layman can technically be elected pope. But he wouldn’t truly be pope until he was ordained a bishop.

I suppose now would be a good time to go digging for some research on this.

 

[smichhertz]

Wow, about 60 seconds with Google and I come across this:

The Roman pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained bishop (canon 332 §1, Code of Canon Law)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=48057

So if you are already a bishop, you become pope when you accept the election. If you are not a bishop, you become pope when you are ordained a bishop.

 

[JReducation]

Is this article wrong on Pope Adrian II?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_II

It states he was married in his youth and that both his wife and daughter were alive during his election.

Here are some more sources
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Pope_Adrian_II

newadvent.org/cathen/01156a.htm

We don’t know much about Adrian II. I did ask our community historian about him. He said up to about the year 1,000 there were still some married bishops, but they were a dying breed across the Apostolic Churches. Apparently, Paul’s influence regarding celibacy caught on rather quickly and in large numbers. However, there was no specific law prohibiting the ordination of married men to the order of bishop until the end of the first millenium.

Alarm bells

How can a man “skip” diaconal and presbyteral ordination and go straight for episcopal?

I have never heard of such a thing.

Because the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood. A bishop is a deacon and a presbyter. One need not ordain a man deacon or priest, if the intent is to make him a bishop. In the Acts themselves we see the ordination first of deacons and later of presbyters. Then we see Paul who was never a deacon or a presbyter, but was ordained a bishop. From the scriptures themselves, we understand that the Apostle (bishop) has the fullness of Holy Orders by virtue of his ordination to the episcopal order.
**
1557 The Second Vatican Council “teaches . . . that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration, that fullness namely which, both in the liturgical tradition of the Church and the language of the Fathers of the Church, is called the high priesthood, the acme (summa) of the sacred ministry.”**

There is no need to ordain to the two lower orders, since the order of bishop is complete in itself. Once ordained a bishop, the man is lacking nothing.

Remember, just because one has never heard of something it does not mean that it is not the case. Sacramental theology is very complex. Most of us only know the surface of it. It’s a special field of study in itself. It takes about 7 years to become a Sacramental Theologian. That’s why there are so few.

Wow, about 60 seconds with Google and I come across this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=48057

So if you are already a bishop, you become pope when you accept the election. If you are not a bishop, you become pope when you are ordained a bishop.

This is what I said above. If the candidate is not a bishop, the Chair of Peter remains vacant until he is ordained a bishop. If he’s a layman or a non-clerical brother, he does not need to be ordained deacon or presbyter, because as I said above, the order of bishop is the fullness of the priesthood. The other two orders are included, for lack of a better term.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We don’t know much about Adrian II. I did ask our community historian about him. He said up to about the year 1,000 there were still some married bishops, but they were a dying breed across the Apostolic Churches. Apparently, Paul’s influence regarding celibacy caught on rather quickly and in large numbers. However, there was no specific law prohibiting the ordination of married men to the order of bishop until the end of the first millenium.

We might not know much about him. But we know he was married. And it looks like his wife was murdered while he was Pope by the librarian. (I know it sounds like a game of clue.) So we know that the Church has had Bishops that were married within the last 18 centuries. Now of course it was not commonplace but it did happen.
It’s ok JReducation. I have trouble correcting myself on a technicality too.
Something like a quote I heard once.

“I’m never wrong. I thought I was wrong once but I wasn’t. I was mistaken.”