Who chooses the Bishop of Rome? Other Bishops?

[Oneofthewomen]

God is not too picky about his employees. The first 12 bishops were very unlikely candidates by today’s standards.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR-
This made me laugh out loud!!

I come from a family of fishermen, so I know what ’characters’ they can be!!
I have no doubt in the power of the Holy Spirit!

 

[JReducation]

Ultimately God is behind every event.

However God is invisible, regularly he does not acts by visible interactions.

As for Bishops, the very first ones were appointed by the Apostles, later they were chosen by the people. Like in any democracy this deteriorated to the ‘best bishops money/power can buy’; so beginning the second millennium (investiture controversy, St Gregory VII) the jurisdiction of the bishop (installation) was given directly by the Pope. Some kings, called as Apostolic kings, like the KIng of France and Hungary claimed the right to nomination, but still the bishops get their power/jurisdiction from the Pope.

We do not know how the first popes were nominated, but quite early the nomination was given to the consolatory body around the pope, the college of Cardinals (there is such body around the bishops too, but as far as I know, they never had nominating and installing rights)

There are written records that the popes were always elected by the successors of the apostles. Those would have been the bishops. There are myths that Peter chose his successor. That’s not true.

The method of electing the pope has varied considerably at different periods of the history of the Church.

**As to the earliest ages, Ferraris (op. cit. infra) says that St. Peter himself constituted a senate for the Roman Church, consisting of twenty-four priests and deacons. These were the councillors of the Bishop of Rome and the electors of his successors. This statement is drawn from a canon in the “Corpus Juris Canonici” (can. “Si Petrus”, caus. 8, Q. 1). Historians and canonists, however, generally hold that the Roman bishopric was filled on its vacancy in the same manner as other bishoprics, that is, the election of the new pope was made by the neighbouring bishops and the clergy and faithful of Rome. Nevertheless, some maintain that the naming of the successor of St. Peter was restricted to the Roman clergy, and that the people were admitted to a part in the elections only after the time of Sylvester I (fourth century). **

newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PJM]

=ajpirc;7856975]But the Holy Spirit only inspires the electors when they remain open to the Holy Spirit, right? If they don’t, is that how an antipope is elected?

My understading of “anti-pope” is Satan.

God guides ALL who get elected to the Papacy to the extent that after 2,000 yars and 265 Popes there are no doctrine or dogma’s attributed to a “bad pope”. ONLY God can accomplish this

 

[PJM]

=Brendan;7858635]I would disagree here. The election of the pope is an excercise of free will by the College. The College is free, like any choice, to elect whom they fell.

A great example would be the Borgia Popes. They could hardly be called the choice of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they are proof positive that the charism of infallibily works, even when the recipient of the charism is a corrupt fornicator .

Sometimes the truth does HURT!

Your partially right. Facts correct; conclusions ???

There can be NO DOUBT that the HS is present in the Concaves. BUT God NEVER forces His Divine Will to subplant humanities FREEWILL. So the Cardnials must be OPEN to the workings of the HS in the midst of politicting and in-fighting. It’s doable but only by humble and pious men.

God does however as you said so well; defend and protect HIS CHURC; His Faith from error on all matters of Faith-belief and Morals. So in the end: GOD WINS:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the Holy Spirit only inspires the electors when they remain open to the Holy Spirit, right? If they don’t, is that how an antipope is elected?

I can’t remember the exact person, but this was during the transition from Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The person being interviewed on TV explaining the process. He said (can’t remember if he was a priest or bishop) that the Pope is always chosen by the Holy Spirit. Even if he turns out to be a bad Pope. Because God’s plan is eternal. Even a bad Pope can bring good things to the Church. Often to make us realize the mistakes we’ve been doing and to force reform in the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t remember the exact person, but this was during the transition from Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The person being interviewed on TV explaining the process. He said (can’t remember if he was a priest or bishop) that the Pope is always chosen by the Holy Spirit. Even if he turns out to be a bad Pope. Because God’s plan is eternal. Even a bad Pope can bring good things to the Church. Often to make us realize the mistakes we’ve been doing and to force reform in the Church.

It was one of the bishops from the Roman Curia. I remember watching that interview. It took place as they were entering the conclave.

My understading of “anti-pope” is Satan.

God guides ALL who get elected to the Papacy to the extent that after 2,000 yars and 265 Popes there are no doctrine or dogma’s attributed to a “bad pope”. ONLY God can accomplish this

Satan is not the anti-pope. We have had several anti-popes, all very human. I assure you. You can see their names if you Google the list of popes. It will give you the real pope and the anti-pope or popes next to his name.

That was one of the reasons why it took centuries before any pope chose the name John. The last John was an anti-pope. He was John XXIII. When Angelo Roncalli was elected, he deliberately took the name John to eliminate the anti-pope, John XXIII. If I’m not mistaken, the old John XXIII, was reconciled with the Church once he gave up his claim to the See of Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF