www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Conclave--scriptural / tradition.

Is the election of the Pope by the Cardinals of the Catholic Church based primarily on Tradition or is it also based on a scriptural tradition?

I thought this question appropriate and worthwhile for discussion at this time.

Gratefully,

Porter.

The idea of bishops picking a replacement for a lost brother bishop has scriptural basis in Acts, when a successor to Judas was needed.

The concept of the Cardinals picking the pope is mostly based on tradition. Early on, the local church picked the new bishop, in Rome or any city. This practice was common in Rome throughout the first millenium. After many abuses in the middle ages, the selection of the pope was given to the Cardinals exclusively. Originally, the Cardinals were the local clergy - even today each Cardinal has a titular church in Rome they are assigned to, so they follow this tradition. Of course, now there are many Cardinals who are not from Rome, or even Italy.

Although this process could be changed if needed, I think it has evolved quite nicely. With so many Cardinals coming from non-Italian countries, we now have a truly "catholic" aspect to picking the successor of Peter. And I think this global aspect will only increase in the future.

I seem to remember that the replacement of Judas was Bartholomew (I may have the name wrong) and that seemed to me, by the wording in Acts, to have been a vote among the apostles. It also seems to me that the apostles when appointing a lower bishop (non-apostolic) did it themselves personally, without a vote from anyone. So I think Paul tells Timothy what Timothy should look (personality traits) when considering to appoint a bishop.

Once a such an apostolic appointed bishop was appointed, history seems to reveal two circumstances.. The first I mention is that early bishops, at times, made their own appointment of a successor. No doubt that in the early church this had occasion to benefit the church as well as occasion of simply greedy prestige kept within the bishops own family. At a time when nothing had yet been put into cannon - I would guess that the presiding bishop and his elders would confer on the way the replacement was done - if the presiding bishop felt he wanted to do it that way. All authority was to the presiding bishop - but it was also his authority (choice) to delegate the task to his church elders (Cardnials) if that is the way he wanted it done.


Secondly� Certainly I think we would find the proper methods laid out in very early church councils, where the cannons for each particular church are forged.

In a very big way - tradition - has little to do with it. The cannons are what count.

Early council dealt with two issues, and it is easy for us of today to not be aware of the separation between the two. And confuse the infallibility of doctrines of theology with the matters of the practical operation of the church as a managed human organization. And so some read early Council documents and imagine that everything appearing in them is in some way - infallible - or set in never-changing stone.

1) Doctrine of theology (infallible as to content)
2) The practical operations of the human nature of the church organization. (not infallible and has some shifting according to needs).

While that of theology may be infallible, the practical operation of the church as to its management - is not infallible - it may be changed by the presiding bishop according to what is deemed more appropriate to the function of the church - at any time. Such a change was initiated by Vatican I and II. Such was also the authority of the bishop of Rome to amend the ways in which the current Papal election is being done.

Since it is the mission of the church to present the gospel to the population - the expression of theology and such should be appropriate to that particular population (culture and language etc..) that the particular church is entrusted with. And so we find that, in fulfillment of their mission, Eastern Theology and Latin theology, and Coptic theology, Oriental theology etc.. uses their own words and concepts to present the common theology of the Church (not cemented to any particular language or culture) to their our entrusted population.

Likewise, I believe we would find the cannons of each particular church - include a method of appointment of succession - and that means of appointment would be similar among these different churches - but vary according to their �local� traditional cultures. Which is to say that I would suspect that the Roman method would have some similarities to the way such similar authority figures were appointed in Rome when the church there was at its early cooperation with the civil governing of Rome. This is only human. People tend to do things by way which they are familiar with and not ways in which they have no knowledge. The main difference being - the isolation of the conclave. While those who enjoy conspiracy theories imagine sinister reasons for the secrecy - its purpose is to isolate the Cardinals from outside influences - kings and powers having the tendency to try to influence the election (�Elect Cardinal so-and-so or you will die!�).

So I believe we will find the earliest traditions (before the practical management of the church necessitated changes) to have been that each bishop of such a status - had the power to authorizes his own replacement - which authority included - how such a replacement should be done. So I believe it would be found that the bishop himself - authorized the method - by which he would be replaced. And such method as he authorized - became the foundation for that section of cannon law - for his particular church.

At times I think it good to remember also, that the tradition of the churches - is not something that had its life within the first few centuries - and then died out - with the physical death of early church fathers - and is something now only of memory and books. The tradition of the church is alive and on going. For example - it is the tradition of the Latin church to give communion by unleavened bread - and that practice came about well later than the early church fathers of the East. Many of the Eastern churches continue to use leavened bread in their own tradition. And the fancy clothing of the different particular churches - differing as to style and adornment - are traditional within each particular church. Such styles and regalia having once communicated great meaning within its own cultures. Tradition has not died - but continues - within each particular church. It is a disservice to the Church in total - to imagine that tradition belongs only to its early fathers. A kind of - death - to the church - assumed to have happened soon after the great early councils. And so as far as the Latin church � its tradition of electing a Pope is through the election by Cardinals - and THAT IS the tradition of the Roman Catholic church even if it varies (by external needs) from what is found in scriptures. The spirit of the election will be found to be a continuation of the spirit of what is also found in scriptures. Only a fool would imagine that the literal - would remain or should remain the same - someone who would like to live in an imaginary church win no current mission and not a real church with mandate to continue to present the gospel to present day varieties of peoples.

Some of this is conjecture. I have not studied the subject directly.

I would love (but do not have the time) to do a comparison between the methods used by the Orthodox, Eastern, Oriental, Coptic, Roman, on and on etc� I would find that spiritually vital and invigorating - and I would not like them all to be forced to become the same according to some groups reconstructed ideas of a tradition that cease to be alive - with the death of the last early church father. For that kind of view point - assumes the church has already died.

-ray

I have been searching and agree with Francis as far as tradition. But I would assume that it ultimately comes from Scripture Acts 1:1-26

Acts
The Apostles and Others Gathered in Jerusalem (1:12-14)
The Motion of Peter to Choose Another Apostle (1:15-26)
Judas' apostatizing fulfilled Scripture (1:15-20)
The criteria for an apostolic replacement (1:21,22)
The Method of choosing (1:23-26)

Acts
Chapter 1

1
1 In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught
2
until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
3
He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days 2 and speaking about the kingdom of God.
4
While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father 3 about which you have heard me speak;
5
for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit."
6
When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going 4 to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7
5 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.
8
6 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9
When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.
10
While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them.
11
They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven."
12
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away.
13
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
15
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16
"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18
He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. 7
19
This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood.
20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts1.htm

However, they were not choosing Peter's successor but it does lay the ground work.

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). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

Also, from New Advent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm

Pani Rose

Thank you, Pani Rose(for all the scriptures) and others for sharing your thoughts so far.

May the black smoke soon become white.

In Christ and the Theotokos,

Mary Jo...