Papal Elections

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).

After Constantine had given peace to the Church, the Christian Roman emperors

often took part in the institution of a new pope and at times their influence was

very marked. From the fourth century onwards, therefore, a new force had to be

reckoned with. The occasion for the interference of the Roman emperors and

later of the kings of Italy was afforded by disputed elections to the papal chair.

The most noted of the earlier instance was at the election of Boniface I (418).

This gave occasion to the decree (c. 8, dist. 79) that when an election was

disputed a new candidate should be chosen.

The interference of the secular power was always distasteful to the Roman

clergy, as shown by their unwillingness to observe decrees on the subject made

even by popes, as in the case of Simplicius and others. The example of the

Roman emperors was followed by the barbarian kings of Italy, of whom the first to

interfere was Theodoric the Ostrogoth, at the election of Symmachus in 498. On

the recovery of their influence in the Italian peninsula, the Eastern emperors

required that the choice of the electors for a new pope must be made known to

the Exarch of Ravenna, who in turn forwarded it to Constantinople, and until the

emperor's confirmation was received, the candidate was not to be acknowledged

as Bishop of Rome. This resulted in long vacancies of the Holy See. The custom

lasted until the pontificate of Benedict II (684-85). A similar claim was put forward

by the Western emperors in the Middle Ages, and some demanded it owing to a

concession made by Adrian I to Charlemagne. This pretended concession is now

recognized as spurious. As to the so-called confirmation of papal elections by

the secular power, Ferraris (loc. cit. infra) notes that it must not be so

understood as to imply that the new pope received the papal power from the

emperor. This would be heretical, for the elected candidate receives his power

from Christ.

The confirmation of the emperor, then, was only to ensure that the canons of the

Church should be carried out without hindrance from factious and seditious

dissenters. It must be admitted that the Holy Roman emperors sometimes made

use of their overwhelming power unscrupulously, and more than once candidates

were elected to the papacy by direct imperial nomination. Otto III is credited with

the nomination of Gregory V and Sylvester II, and Henry III with the effectual

naming of Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, and Victor II. But it is obvious that

such nomination is not real election, for the acceptance of the legal electors was

necessary to ratify the choice, though undoubtedly they would naturally be

swayed by circumstances to give effect to the imperial preference.

It has sometimes been said that in the earlier ages popes have appointed their

successors in the pontificate. Thus, St. Peter is said to have so chosen Clement

I. The authority on which the statement rests is now generally acknowledged to

be apocryphal. Boniface II chose Vigilius for his successor in 531, but later

repented and publicly withdrew the nomination. Baronius (H.E., ann. 1085, 1087)

states that Gregory VII in 1085 elected Victor III as his successor; that Victor in

like manner chose Urban II in 1086, and urban elected Paschal II in 1099. It is to

be noted that the canon "Si Transitus" in the "Corpus Juris" (can. "Si Tranc.", 10,

dist. 70) seems to imply the right of the pope to nominate his successor, since

its opening words are: "If the death of the pope take place so unexpectedly that

he cannot make a decree concerning the election of his successor, etc.".

However, these so-called elections were never more than nominations, for none

of the persons thus named ever presumed to declare themselves popes before

the ratification of the legal electors had been obtained.

It is certain at present, that, according to ecclesiastical law (c. "Episcopo", 3; c.

"Plerique", 5; can. "Moyses", 6, caus. 8, Q. 1), the pope cannot elect his

successor. It is commonly held also that he is prohibited from doing so by Divine

law, though the contrary has also been held by canonists. As to the gradual

restrictions and determinations governing the mode of election of the pontiffs, we

note that in 606 Boniface III decreed that the electors should not meet until the

third day after the pope's burial. In 769 a decree was framed in a synod of the

Lateran, that the Roman clergy were to choose as pope only a priest or deacon,

and forbade the laity to take any part in the election. The newly-elected was,

however, to receive the homage of the laity before he was conducted to the

Lateran basilica. This decree caused widespread discontent among the influential

laymen, and Nicholas I in a Roman Synod held in 862 restored the right of

suffrage to the Roman nobles. John IX in 898 confirmed the custom of having the

consecration of the new pontiff take place in the presence of the imperial

ambassadors. In 963, the Emperor Otto I endeavoured to bind the Romans by

oath not to elect anyone as pope until he had been nominated by the emperor.

An epoch-making decree in the matter of papal eclections is that of Nicholas II in

1059. According to this constitution, the cardinal bishops are first to meet and

discuss the candidates for the papacy, and select the names of the most worthy.

They are then to summon the other cardinals and, together with them, proceed to

an election. Finally, the assent of the rest of the clergy and the laity to the result

of the suffrage is to be sought. The Choice is to be made from the Roman Clergy,

unless a fit candidate cannot be found among them. In the election regard is to

be had for the rights of the Holy Roman emperor, who in turn is to be requested

to show similar respect for the Apostolic See. In case the election cannot be

held in Rome, it can validly be held elsewhere. What the imperial rights are is not

explicitly stated in the decree, but it seems plain from contemporary evidence

that they require the results of the election to be forwarded to the emperor by

letter or messenger, in order that he may assure himself of the validity of the

election. Gregory VII (1073), however, was the last pope who asked for imperial

confirmation. It will be seen that the decree of Pope Nicholas reserves the actual

election to the cardinals, but requires the assent (laudatio) of the lower clergy

and laity.

The Tenth (Ecumenical Synod (Lateran) in 1139 restricted, however, the entire

choice to the cardinals, and in 1179, another Lateran Council under Alexander III

made the rule that the pope is to be chosen by a two-thirds majority of the

electors who are present. This last decree did not state what was to be done in

case such a majority could not be obtained. When the cardinals found

themselves face to face with this contingency on the death of Clement IV in

1268, they commissioned six cardinals as plenipotentiaries to decide on a

candidate. The vacancy of the Holy See had lasted for two years and nine

months. To prevent a recurrence of this evil, the Second Council of Lyons under

Gregory X (1274) decreed that ten days after the pope's decease, the cardinals

should assemble in the palace in the city in which the pope died, and there hold

their electoral meetings, entirely shut out from all outside influences. If they did

not come to an agreement on a candidate in three days, their victuals were to

lessened, and after a further delay of five days, the food supply was to be still

further restricted. This is the origin of conclaves.

The decretal of Gregory X on this subject is called "Ubi periculum majus". For the

later regulations governing papal elections see CONCLAVE. According to certain

ancient canons (can. "Oportet", 3; can. "Nullus", 4, dist. 79), only cardinals

should be chosen pope. However, Alexander III decreed (cap. "Licet", 6, "De

elect.") that "he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the

Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the cardinals." As late

as 1378, Urban VI was chosen, though not a cardinal (consult, however,

Constitut. 50 of Sixtus V "Postquam", § 2). A layman may also be elected pope,

as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a married man would not be

invalid (c. "Qui uxorem", 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic,

schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical

election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full

and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church. A papal election, therefore,

needs no confirmation, as the pontiff has no superior on earth.

FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, VI (Rome, 1890), s.v. Papa, art 1;

SAGMULLER, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1903); WERNZ, Jus

Decretalium, II (Rome, 1899); SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New

York, 1805).

William H.W. Fanning

Transcribed by Robert A. Orosco

Dedicated to Fr Jacob J. Joerger, OP

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI

Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org

Election of the Popes

The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of

Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome:

he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of

the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking,

primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever

belonged to the members of the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of

giving to the universal Church her chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in

virtue of his election by the universal Church. This is not to say that the election

should be by popular vote of the Romans. In ecclesiastical affairs it is always for

the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock. The choice of a bishop belongs

to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading members of the clergy. It is so in

the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of cardinals exercise their

office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of

cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall,

not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy.

At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event of

his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a

consistorial allocution. It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his

successor. History tells us of one pope -- Benedict II (530) -- who meditated

adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and burnt

the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the

Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for

the needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he

regards as fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way

the election of Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the

action of the cardinals. The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in

which the subsequent election shall be carried out, determining the composition

of the electoral college, and the conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The

method at present followed is the result of a series of enactments on this

subject.

A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman

Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St.

Cyprian tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the

comprovincial bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: "He was

made bishop by the decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly

all the clergy, by the college of aged bishops [sacerdotum], and of good

men"(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8). And a precisely similar ground is alleged by the

Roman priests in their letter to Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of the

election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L., XX, 750). Previous to the fall of the

Western Empire interference by the civil power seems to have been

inconsiderable. Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an antipope, Felix II

(355), but the act was universally regarded as heretical. Honorius on the

occasion of the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the election was

dubious, neither party should hold the papacy, but that a new election should

take place. This method was applied at the elections of Conon (686) and Sergius

I (687). The law is found in the Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX), though Gratian

declares it void of force as having emanated from civil and not ecclesiastical

authority (d. XCVI, proem.; d. XCVII, proem.). After the barbarian conquest of

Italy, the Church's rights were less carefully observed. Basilius, the prefect of

Odoacer, claimed the right of supervising the election of 483 in the name of his

master, alleging that Pope Simplicius had himself requested him to do so (Hard.,

II, 977). The disturbances which occurred at the disputed election of Symmachus

(498) led that pope to hold a council and to decree the severest penalties on all

who should be guilty of canvassing or bribery in order to attain the pontificate. It

was moreover decided that the majority of votes should decide the election.

Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became in his later years

a persecutor of the Church. He even went so far as to appoint Felix III (IV) in 526

as the successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the incarceration to

which the king had condemned him. Felix, however, was personally worthy of the

office, and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent election. The

precedent of interference set by Theodoric was fruitful of evil to the Church. After

the destruction of the Gothic monarchy (537), the Byzantine emperors went even

farther than the heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights.

Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I (553) were forced on the Church at imperial

dictation. In the case of the latter there seems to have been no election: his title

was validated solely through his recognition as bishop by clergy and people. The

formalities of election at this time were as follows (Lib. Diurnus Rom. Pont., 2, in

P. L., CV, 27). After the pope's death, the archpriest, the archdeacon and the

primicerius of the notaries sent an official notification to the exarch at Ravenna.

On the third day after the decease the new pope was elected, being invariably

chosen from among the presbyters or deacons of the Roman Church (cf. op. cit.,

2, titt. 2, 3 5), and an embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request the

official confirmation of the election. Not until this had been received did the

consecration take Place. The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lombard

invasion of 568 had destroyed the prestige of Byzantine power in Italy. Pelagius II

(,578) and Gregory I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the electors. And in

684, owing to the long delays involved in the journey to Constantinople,

Constantine IV (Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request that in future it

should not be necessary to wait for confirmation, but that a mere notification of

the election would suffice. The 1088 of the exarchate and the iconoclastic heresy

of the Byzantine court completed the severance between Rome and the Eastern

Empire, and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed altogether with the customary

notice to Constantinople.

In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the

intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised

to priest's orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a

repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the

sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover,

reduced to a mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious

the Church retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for

the civil power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans that none should be

consecrated pope without the permission and the presence of his ambassadors.

This was, in fact, done at most of the elections during the ninth century, and in

898 the riots which ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V led John IX to give

ecclesiastical sanction to this system of imperial control. In a council held at

Rome in that year he decreed that the election should be made by bishops

(cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to the wishes of the people, but that no

consecration should take place except in the presence of the imperial legate

(Mansi XVIII, 225).

The due formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the

wild disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the

same is true as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the

restored empire, however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even

compelled the Romans to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope

without his or his son's consent (963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In 1046 the

scandals of the preceding elections, in which the supreme pontificate had

become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless of what means they

employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry III. Three

popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was free

in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to

assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hildebrand

was the moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an

independent choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he

held a council in the Lateran and issued the Decree "In Nomine". This document

is found in two recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is

however little doubt that the papal recension embodied in the "Decretum Gratiani"

(c. 1. d. XXIII) is genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the

antipope Guibert. The right of election is confined to the cardinals, the effective

choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergy and people have

a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the Emperor

Henry IV and to such of his successors as should personally request and receive

the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of

cardinals, though this should be the case if possible.

This decree formed the basis of the present legislation on the papal election,

though the system underwent considerable development. The first important

modification was the Constitution "Licet de Vitanda" [c. vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of

Alexander III, the first of the decrees passed by the Third Oecumenical Council of

the Lateran (1179). To prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established

by this law that no one should be held dub elected until two thirds of the

cardinals should have given their votes for him. In this decree no distinction is

made between the rights of the cardinal bishops and those of the rest of the

Sacred College. The imperial privilege of confirming the election had already

become obsolete owing to the breach between the Church and the Empire under

Henry IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement IV (1268) and the

coronation of Gregory X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years intervened.

To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of Lyons

(1179) issued the Decree " Ubi periculum " [c. iii, " De elect.", in 60 (I, 6)], by

which it was ordained that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be

secluded from the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the

seclusion should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church

with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the

Conclave. This system prevails at the present day.

G. H. JOYCE

Transcribed by Gerard Haffner

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII

Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York