Adrian V?

[ThePilgrim]

I was surprised to learn that Pope Adrian V was pope, although he was never even ordained a priest, let alone a bishop.

Don't you all see the positions of pope and Bishop of Rome to be coterminous?

Can anyone explain this to me?

In Christ,
John

 

[Irenaeus]

ThePilgrim,

This isn't an isolated phenomenon. In the middle ages, many men were named bishop or archbishop or abbot of a certain diocese or monastery, and have oversight over those locations, which were given to them in commendam, to be used as benefices, from which many of these individuals drew funds.

Even St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, was made "archbishop" (in title, not consecrated) when he was yet a subdeacon. In time he was consecrated, and with the Council of Trent attempted to reform the clergy.

 

[ThePilgrim]

So he wasn't a bishop, but yet he exercised the authority of a bishop?

 

[Irenaeus]

At least canonically in certain ways. Of course if he wasn't a bishop or Priest he could serve Mass or absolve...

 

[QuantaCura]

I was surprised to learn that Pope Adrian V was pope, although he was never even ordained a priest, let alone a bishop.

Don't you all see the positions of pope and Bishop of Rome to be coterminous?

Can anyone explain this to me?

In Christ,
John

I can't find evidence of this anywhere except wiki--and even that only says he was not a bishop. Where are you getting this information from?

 

[ThePilgrim]

How is that justified?

 

[ThePilgrim]

Multiple sources. Do a search of his life. He was a deacon sent as a papal legate to England, and then was elected pope, acted as pope, is counted as a pope, but died a month later without even being ordained to the priesthood.

 

[QuantaCura]

Multiple sources. Do a search of his life. He was a deacon sent as a papal legate to England, and then was elected pope, acted as pope, is counted as a pope, but died a month later without even being ordained to the priesthood.

They seem to be all wiki-esque. Anyway, if it is true, given his brief reign it seems they never got around to consecrating him--it took a long time for all the appropriate dignitaries to come to be present (he would have been made a bishop at that time too)--this happened with another pope who was elected, but not consecrated because he died first (he was a bishop). Both are included on the official list--but we could also choose not to put them on the list--it doesn't really matter except for naming purposes.

I really don't see what has to be justified? It seems he didn't ordain or offer Mass, etc.--that would be the only problem.

 

[ThePilgrim]

The sources I was reading don't seem to be wiki-esque, and in any case, this isn't mentioned as a controversy, conspiracy theory sort of thing, but as an excepted fact.

Well, he exercised his papal powers, making pronouncements, etc, but without ever being a bishop. Was he really a pope, even without being a priest?

If so, it seems that the office of pope is different from the office of Bishop of Rome.

 

[QuantaCura]

Well, he exercised his papal powers, making pronouncements, etc, but without ever being a bishop. Was he really a pope, even without being a priest?

If so, it seems that the office of pope is different from the office of Bishop of Rome.

No, it's not. Any pronouncements that were made would have been accepted in respect to the fact of his election and anticipated consecration. The charism of infallibility probably would not be possible (I would surmise).

 

[ThePilgrim]

But that's not what Catholic sources say. They say that he reigned (or ruled) from the day of his election until the day of his death.

Why is he listed as pope and considered as having been a pope, if his pronouncements were only accepted in anticipation?

 

[QuantaCura]

But that's not what Catholic sources say. They say that he reigned (or ruled) from the day of his election until the day of his death.

Why is he listed as pope and considered as having been a pope, if his pronouncements were only accepted in anticipation?

They would have been received with authority because he was elected as Pope, even though he was not yet bishop. In other words he was treated as Pope because he had the rightful claim to the chair. He was acting as head of the Roman Church, ruling until the bishop could be installed (which would have been him). Just because the particular Church of Rome does not have a bishop yet, does not mean that it isn't still the primatial Church.

I think you're putting way too much emphasis on whether he is included in a list. The lists really only matter for naming purposes.

 

[BjBarnett]

any catholic male can be made the pope. They are installed as pope at there installation and made a bishop. that fact does not in anyway dispute the fact if he was a valid pope or not.

 

[ThePilgrim]

They would have been received with authority because he was elected as Pope, even though he was not yet bishop. In other words he was treated as Pope because he had the rightful claim to the chair. He was acting as head of the Roman Church, ruling until the bishop could be installed (which would have been him). Just because the particular Church of Rome does not have a bishop yet, does not mean that it isn't still the primatial Church.

I think you're putting way too much emphasis on whether he is included in a list. The lists really only matter for naming purposes.

I'm not worried about naming purposes. I'm worried about the fact that he is officially considered *to have been pope*.

Basically, what I'm asking is this:

1) Was he really pope?
2) Was he ever a bishop?
3) If he was 1, but not 2, how can that be?

John

 

[BjBarnett]

I'm not worried about naming purposes. I'm worried about the fact that he is officially considered *to have been pope*.

Basically, what I'm asking is this:

1) Was he really pope?
2) Was he ever a bishop?
3) If he was 1, but not 2, how can that be?

John

he had to be ordained a bishop at his papal installation. the pope is the bishop of rome so in order to be pope you must be a bishop. Like I said before anyone can in theory be elected pope. If the person is not a bishop at the time of there election they actually become pope when they become a bishop.

 

[ThePilgrim]

he had to be ordained a bishop at his papal installation. the pope is the bishop of rome so in order to be pope you must be a bishop. Like I said before anyone can in theory be elected pope. If the person is not a bishop at the time of there election they actually become pope when they become a bishop.

But that's not the facts of the case... He was never ordained a bishop, yet reigned as pope for a month, already exercising the power of the papacy. He is counted among the popes, and yet was never ordained beyond the rank of deacon.

In Christ,
John

 

[ThePilgrim]

*bump*

 

[AMDG]

I've read that since he was never a bishop, he was actually not a Bishop of Rome (he died before being consecrated) and we just retain his name in the long succession. Have also read that Dante wrote about Adrian V being in purgatory.

But it's all history of the Middle Ages and doesn't seem to even touch on the fact that the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

 

[SaintGeorge]

I can't remember, but I think their were cases similar to this in Constantinople, i.e. the Muslim government would appoint a man to be the patriarch, but he would only be a layman or perhaps even an incognito Muslim. So, other bishops had to then consecrate him later. I could be very, very mistaken here. Please check my claim before you believe it. If it's true, I'd love to know the specific details.

In any case, even if we remove Adrain V from the list, it is still a continuous apostolic succession. I mean, he was only alive a month.