# ON THE CONSECRATION, ENTHRONEMENT, AND CORONATION OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF BOTH LAWS

THESES FOR THE DOCTORATE                

SERIES I -\ CANON LAW -\ N. 1

## FRANCISCUS WASNER

DOCTOR OF CANON LAW

[Papal emblem]

ROME

AT THE LIBRARY CUSTODY OF THE PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF BOTH LAWS

PIAZZA S. APOLLINARE 49

1936

On behalf of the Faculty of Canon Law we have read and approve

BERTRANDUS KURTSCHEID, *Professor of the History of Canon Law*
ACACIUS COUSSA, *Professor of Oriental Ecclesiastical Law*

Examined

Prof.\ FRANCISCUS ROBERTI, *Dean*

Rome, 31 March 1936

## IMPRIMATUR

† IOSEPHUS PALICA, Titular Archbishop of Philippi, Vicar General

# INTRODUCTION

In treating the consecration, enthronization, and coronation of the Supreme Pontiff, we shall not proceed as if dealing with three acts separate from one another and connected only by their passive subject—namely, the person of the Supreme Pontiff—but we also wish to comprehend those three acts under a certain common juridical aspect, specifically with respect to the conferring or exercise of the supreme power of jurisdiction. Following the manner of speaking of Mabillon[^1], we employ the notion of institution. But immediately there arises for us the question of what is meant by discourse concerning this institution of the Supreme Pontiff in a juridical dissertation, if under this word we wish to understand something other than the election itself, since concerning the manner by which the successor of blessed Peter receives his full and supreme power, Canon 219 of the Code of Canon Law clearly instructs us, declaring: *The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine right the full power of supreme jurisdiction*, and the constitution of Pius X *Vacante Sede Apostolica*, the proximate source of this canon, expressly also encompasses the exercise of this power[^2].

Some older texts already point the way toward resolving this apparent contradiction, which, employing less of the dogmatic manner of speaking of our canon than being clothed, so to speak, in historical garb, defend the same principle. Thus § 6 of the constitution of Nicholas II concerning the election of the Supreme Pontiff, issued in the Roman synod of the year 1059, decrees: *Clearly, after the election shall have been made, if warlike tempest or any kind of human endeavor should resist out of malicious intent, so that he who has been elected cannot be enthroned in the apostolic see according to custom, nevertheless the elect, as pope, shall obtain authority to govern the holy Roman church and to dispose of all its faculties, which we know that blessed Gregory did before his consecration*[^3].

And the Roman synod of the following year says for the case of impeded enthronement: ... assembled, in whatever place shall please them, let them elect whomever they shall have perceived to be more worthy and more useful for the apostolic see, with authority granted to him to govern and dispose of the affairs and benefit of the holy Roman church, according to what shall seem better to him in accordance with the quality of the times, just as if he were already completely enthroned[^4].

From these texts it becomes clear that ordinarily the exercise of jurisdiction ought to be preceded by another act, called enthronement, yet this is not so necessary that it cannot be omitted in extraordinary circumstances; episcopal consecration had similar significance in times past.

The principle therefore enunciated in canon 219 is subject to the constitutions of Nicholas II, but restricted, because the exercise of power obtained by election alone once accepted should in ordinary circumstances be preceded by enthronement.

We find this same principle historically clothed in another manner in the text of Clement V from the year 1306, incorporated into the Corpus Iuris and cited in the note to the said canon. The Pope states:

*Since certain persons (as we have learned), relying upon their own prudence (or rather imprudence) contrary to the Apostle's teaching, and endeavoring to dispute about matters which are not expedient for them, do not hesitate to assert that the Supreme Pontiff ought not to involve himself in making provisions, reservations, dispensations and other graces before the insignia of his coronation, nor should he write himself in letters simply as bishop, but as bishop-elect, nor even use the bull in which his own name is expressed: we, desiring to restrain the temerity of such individuals, bind with sentence of excommunication each and every one who, on occasion of this sort, have dared to challenge any of our letters drawn up concerning any business whatsoever*[^5].

This decree expressly confirms the principle of canon 219, by referring to and rejecting the opinion of certain persons who, arguing from the custom of the so-called "half bulls" which pontiffs had de facto used before the completion of coronation[^6], maintained that the pontiff cannot exercise the power of his jurisdiction before the said solemnity.

From the documents cited, we draw two conclusions for our purpose: first, three acts are named that follow the election at various times; Nicholas II speaks of consecration and enthronement, Clement V of coronation; second, these three acts have in common that they bear some relation to the exercise of the power of the Supreme Pontiff.

Thus the way is opened for us to establish a preliminary definition of our concept of the institution of the Supreme Pontiff: we say *preliminary*, since it can only be made fully clear through the course of investigation alone. Therefore, we understand by this term—abstracting from those meanings that occur in beneficiary law—*the solemn ceremonial acts following the election of the Supreme Pontiff, which and insofar as they have a relation to the exercise of the supreme power of jurisdiction*[^7]. Of these, three principal ones have already become known from the documents cited, namely consecration, enthronement, and coronation.

There are various ways in which this relationship of institution to election can be conceived. It can be said that election relates to institution as *ius ad rem* [right to a thing] relates to *ius in re* [right in a thing][^8]. This distinction expresses our matter well, at least for certain centuries, though with attention paid to a certain difference situated in this respect: that the act of papal election has never been considered as an act conferring supreme power itself, but only as an act designating the person to whom this dignity is immediately conferred by God. Therefore, notions concerning the conferral of rights cannot be fully applied to papal institution. Papal institution for this reason refers only to the exercise, not to the conferral of the right. Nevertheless, according to the external form, so to speak, election relates to institution as the conferral of a right to a thing relates to the conferral of a right in a thing. All of these matters must be more fully explained in the course of this treatise.

Another way of conceiving this relationship presents itself from the well-known distinction between *traditio* [delivery/transfer] and *investitura* [investiture]. Arising from the law of immovable property among the Germanic peoples, in the Middle Ages it was also applied to the conferral of offices. *Traditio* confers a right that is not complete, but requires the complement of investiture. This way of conceiving our matter is also fitting for the reason that in performing investiture, solemn forms were always employed, as they are also in the institution of the Supreme Pontiff[^9].

The significance of institution consists in its relation to the exercise of jurisdiction. And although it does not confer the right itself, it has the greatest influence in determining the moment of time for its exercise, and therefore possesses a true and proper juridical significance, requiring also juridical consideration and treatment. It suffices here to mention the already cited decree of Nicholas II, the use of half-seals (*bullae dimidiae*), the method of counting the years of a pontificate from the completed institution, not from the election. Concerning all these matters, however, more will be said when discussing the individual forms of institution.

Another significance is also present in the institution of the pontiff, one not to be despised in juridical consideration, namely: the demonstration and manifestation of the legitimacy of the election. Thus again Nicholas II, probably in the year 1060, in a Roman synod:

*Nevertheless, by apostolic authority we decree what we have decreed in our other assemblies: that if anyone should be enthroned in the Apostolic See through money or human favor or popular or military tumult, without the harmonious and canonical election and blessing of the cardinal bishops and subsequently of the following orders of religious clerics, he shall be held not as pope or apostolic, but as apostate*[^10].

He therefore is the true and legitimate pontiff who has been lawfully enthroned. This was of the greatest importance especially in ancient times and the Middle Ages, when insignia, symbols, and solemn rites were the principal proofs of legitimate power, both in the empire and in the Church. Thus installation, beyond the juridical relation strictly so called to the exercise of power, also has a juridical-symbolic relation, arising from the fact that the completed solemnity of installation was the principal visible demonstration of a legitimate pontiff. This was especially observed in schismatic elections, in which this element of installation was considered as if in first place in determining the question of legitimacy, and consequently of recognition of the pontiff and the exercise of his supreme power.

From what we have said, there now emerges clearly the *proximate object* of our dissertation of inquiry, namely the installation of the Supreme Pontiff according to a twofold aspect: historical, comprehending the origin, evolution, and disuse of diverse forms of installation; juridical, consisting in the exposition of those relations to the exercise of supreme power, that is, the juridical and symbolic-juridical relation described above, to be found in each form of installation.

So that we may also say something concerning the *method* to be employed, we shall not treat each question—juridical and historical—separately and distinctly from one another; but, since the matter is intimately connected, it has also become a characteristic of the historical tradition and the sources of our science that often the historical evolution is more clearly understood when the juridical nature is examined, or even that the juridical nature becomes clearer when the historical evolution is understood. Therefore, the historical method is chiefly to be employed, but not uniquely and exclusively; rather, it is to be supplemented and united with the principles of juridical science and its method.

The sources which are available to us are of three kinds: juridical, namely ecclesiastical laws concerning the institution of the pontiff, councils, collections of canons, sources from which customary law is known; ceremonial-liturgical, such as Ordines and Ceremonial Books, since institution has always been a solemn ceremonial-liturgical act; historical in general, writings reporting on those solemnities, letters, lives of the pontiffs especially, diaries of the masters of ceremonies for the more recent period, etc.

Concerning the authorities who have written on our question, it must be said that many books indeed exist, especially on consecration and coronation, with few treating enthronement, but they have scarcely considered the matter from a juridical perspective and have entirely neglected the simultaneous historical and juridical evolution of one form from another—which is especially true regarding the origin of enthronement. For this reason, our dissertation strives primarily to emphasize the aforementioned historical and juridical continuity. GRAUERT[^11] developed the concept of the institution as one, even though he uses different terms and erroneously believes that it was verified in the introduction into the Lateran Palace during the first ten centuries. In fact, however, he correctly expounded the juridical matter and also attempts to conceive the further evolution juridically. R. ZOEPFFEL[^12] deserves the highest merit for the history of all ceremonies celebrated at the beginning of a new pontificate—the first to establish certain foundations for investigating the rites of enthronement, even though, as he himself recognized, he did not acquire complete certainty, especially since he investigated the matter only from the eleventh century onward and did not recognize the juridical nature of consecration and its heir in enthronement. W. MARTENS[^13] made numerous excellent observations about enthronement, but he too did not go beyond the field of probable conjectures. Very many writings exist concerning the coronation of the Supreme Pontiff, and they are full of erudition, but even these deal more with the history of the crown than with coronation and its juridical and juridical-symbolic nature—concerning which latter point K. BURDACH[^14] has excellent insights, even though we cannot follow him in all things. These are the ones who have treated the central and principal question of our subject matter. We shall cite the works of others in the course of our treatment.

Therefore, what we hope to set forth as new lies in this: that desiring to descend to the very root of both history and law, we begin from episcopal consecration itself, and weighing its juridical significance, we demonstrate from it the origin of the new form of institution, showing the influence of various ideas of law, and in the same manner we attempt to understand and explain the rite of coronation from its origins and juridical-historical circumstances.

# FIRST PART: ON THE CONSECRATION AND FORM OF INSTITUTION UP TO THE TENTH CENTURY

## CHAPTER I: Consecration was the true form of institution

The ancient custom of the Church, both Eastern and Western, forbidding bishops from transferring from their sees to others, even if not always observed in the case of ordinary bishops, was nonetheless most rigorously observed in electing the supreme pontiff, such that over the course of more than eight centuries no bishop was elected Roman Pontiff[^15]. This fact was of the greatest importance for the form of institution of the supreme pontiff. For the new pontiff, having accepted election and been invested with the supreme power of jurisdiction, still required an act by which he also obtained the supreme power of orders, namely episcopal consecration, which therefore was the first and principal act after election, and at the same time the uniquely necessary act[^16], so that the elect might be constituted as supreme priest and pontiff in both powers, that of orders and that of jurisdiction.

Therefore, any papal consecration was excluded in the sense that the elect would receive a special consecration for supreme pontiff that was essentially different from episcopal consecration[^17], as some[^18] have thought, not considering the difference between the supreme power of jurisdiction, which belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone, and the power of orders, which he possesses essentially the same as other bishops[^19], nor the historical evolution of ceremonies always taking their beginning from essentially necessary acts.

Therefore it is also understood how episcopal consecration developed as the form of institution up to the tenth century. For since only after receiving consecration as bishop did the elected pontiff obtain all power, it was fitting that he should not exercise the power of jurisdiction except after the completion of consecration as bishop. Moreover, many acts of jurisdiction are connected or were connected with the exercise of the power of orders, and these powers were not conceived and distinguished as clearly in those centuries—all of which explains that union of consecration as bishop with the beginning of the exercise of the primacy. He was the true Roman pontiff who was ordained as bishop in the Roman see. In this way the solemn act of consecration obtained a relationship with the exercise of the power of jurisdiction, such that it was the true terminus after which this exercise [began]; consecration therefore is to be called the true and proper form of institution.

What we have thus far expounded more dogmatically and according to reason, historical documents clearly confirm.

1)\ An elected pontiff who was prevented by death before receiving consecration was not counted in the series of Roman bishops, as happened in the year 752 to a certain priest Stephen, who after the death of Pope Zachary was elected pontiff *on the third day after he arose from his sleep and, sitting, was arranging his personal affairs, suddenly while sitting he became deranged, fell mute, and died the following day*[^20]. His successor, named Stephen, is called the second; therefore the priest Stephen was not considered supreme pontiff[^21]. However, we do not have complete certainty about this event.

2)\ The beginning of the pontificate and consequently the numbering of its years was not counted from the day of election but from the day of consecration, which custom was so strictly observed that it was employed as a heuristic principle by editors of the registers of the supreme pontiffs to determine the date of consecration[^22].

3)\ If for any reasons acts of jurisdiction had to be performed during the intermediate time between the election and consecration of the pontiff, these were not carried out in the name and authority of the elected pontiff but jointly with certain higher clerics of the Roman Church, namely the archpriest, archdeacon, and chief notary, who also exercised the governance of the Church during a vacant see and were called *those keeping the place of the holy apostolic see*, or in the name of those alone. The See was therefore still considered vacant during that intermediate time. This is evident in formulas 61, 62, 63 of the Liber Diurnus[^23] by which the election of a new pontiff was announced to the archbishop, judges, and apocrisiarius established in Ravenna. These formulas pertain to the more ancient series of the collection, at least from the time of Honorius I (625-638), if not arising even earlier[^24].

The Venerable Bede preserved a very clear example of this matter in his Ecclesiastical History[^25], namely a letter of Pope John IV (640-642) sent to the bishops and priests of Scotland concerning the celebration of the Easter solemnity, which begins thus: *Hilarus the archpriest, and keeper of the place of the holy apostolic see, John the deacon and elected in God's name, likewise John the chief notary and keeper of the place of the holy apostolic see*.

In the same manner, Benedict II (684-685) before his consecration calls himself *Benedict, presbyter and elected by God's name of the holy apostolic see*[^26]. We find the last vestige of this discipline observed by Pope Innocent II (1130), who in a letter written before his consecration appears as *Gregory... elected as Roman Pontiff*[^27].

From all these examples, therefore, we conclude that episcopal consecration was the true terminus after which the exercise of jurisdiction began, for in all the instances cited the election is already presupposed to have taken place, and in the letter of John IV there is question of a proper act of jurisdiction, which the authority of the elected deacon could not perform, who moreover does not send the letter in the first place, but according to the hierarchical rank then held. Consecration, therefore, was the true and proper form of institution in our juridical sense[^28].

4)\ Our documents are for the most part from the seventh century, which is easily understood, since because of the right of approval of the elected pontiff, which the emperors exercised at that time, intervals of several months separated consecration from election[^29], and therefore those relationships between episcopal consecration and the exercise of jurisdiction can shine forth most clearly from the historical documents. But testimonies from earlier centuries are not entirely lacking, not indeed from the primitive period of Church history, when consecration as bishop immediately followed the completed election[^30], but not long after liberty was obtained in the Church, a manner of consecration prevailed which, when compared with that later development of the seventh century, demonstrates that the same significance of consecration existed also in the preceding centuries.

Let us consider for this purpose what had transpired in Rome in the years 418-419, when, after the death of Pope Zosimus, two pontiffs were established and consecrated on the same day—December 29, 418—Boniface I as pope and Eulalius the archdeacon as antipope[^31]. Symmachus, the prefect of the City, in order to restore public order most violently disturbed by the schism, reported to Emperor Honorius, who was then residing in Ravenna, presenting the account of the events in favor of the archdeacon Eulalius[^32]. The emperor's response[^33] subsequently approved Eulalius, *to whom the appropriate number of those ordaining, the legitimate solemnity of time, and the proper quality of place conferred the apex of the revered name*[^34]. The emperor did not assign these three conditions of episcopal consecration according to his own judgment, but extracted them from the facts narrated in Symmachus's letter, in which they were said to pertain to *the order of sacred law and the principle of custom*, and their transgressions found in Boniface's case *were censured as having been done against the reverence of venerable law*[^35].

These statements and actions are connected with those matters which we have expounded when speaking of the moment of institution regarding the legitimacy of election. For there exist certain prescribed regulations determining the external form of consecration in the cited rescript of Emperor Honorius, which, when properly observed and carried out, are signs manifesting a true and legitimate pontiff, especially in the case of a schismatic election. He is the true pope who has been consecrated according to the *venerable law*. This is acknowledged by all as the *order of sacred law and the principle of custom*. This moment of institution is intimately connected with the primary moment, namely in relation to the exercise of power. For those external acts must be performed in a determined form so that the legitimate power of the elected person may be established; they therefore constitute the true terminus after which such exercise [begins]. Nor is it surprising that common consideration, perceiving with eyes and ears, recognized in these [ceremonies] the conferral of jurisdictional power itself. The determined form of ceremonies to be executed was thus a sign manifesting and providing certainty about the juridical status[^36].

We have, therefore, in the greater formation and determination of external circumstances, clear testimony that consecration among bishops, beyond its own proper moment—namely, the conferral of the power of orders—also possessed another moment, namely that of institution regarding the power of jurisdiction.

And if we inquire about the time when this consideration prevailed, it is clear from the texts themselves that it was not introduced at the beginning of the fifth century (418), but that it already existed as a *venerable law and custom* beforehand, and probably developed during the course of the fourth century along with the greater liturgical freedom that was obtained through increased formation.

5)\ The final historical argument is provided to us by the already-cited decree of Nicholas II concerning the election of pontiffs, which, dealing with the juridical effect of enthronement necessary in ordinary circumstances, compares it to consecration in past times and the exception established by himself for enthronement to the exception admitted by Gregory the Great[^37]. Therefore, in all respects enthronement and consecration are made equivalent regarding the exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, just as enthronement in ordinary cases, so also consecration must have preceded the exercise of jurisdiction, or consecration was the true form of institution.

Having set forth and demonstrated from historical documents the juridical nature of consecration as bishop, the way is now open to examine those individual determinations enumerated in the imperial rescript; nevertheless, it would be appropriate to preface this with a proper chapter concerning the Orders by which norms for consecration were handed down, with a few notes added about the rite itself, insofar as this seems necessary for our purpose.

## CHAPTER II: *Concerning the Orders that determine the rite of consecration*

Worthy of special mention are the Orders by which the rite itself and the circumstances of consecration are determined[^38], since in these the juridical nature is chiefly manifested[^39].

From the ancient Sacramentaries, the Leonine and Gelasian show nothing specific for the consecration of the supreme pontiff[^40]. There exist texts which the Roman church used in the consecration of all bishops[^41]. The Gregorian Sacramentarium, however, has a special rubric *Prayer for ordaining a pontiff. Which should be added in the consecration whose beginning is: God of all honors*[^42], in which there exist certain amplifications and changes to the consecratory prayer used in the ordination of bishops, which are valid for the Roman pontiff alone. For these words are added:

*And therefore to this thy servant whom thou hast given as prelate of the apostolic see and primate of all priests who are in the world, and teacher of thy universal church, and whom thou hast chosen for the ministry of the highest priesthood, we beseech thee, Lord, to grant this grace, bestow upon him the pontifical chair, to govern thy church and the universal people, through our Lord.*

This formula, even though it is not contained in the more ancient Sacramentary, nevertheless arose in the most ancient times; for liturgical scholars think that the revision of this consecratory prayer should probably be attributed to Saint Leo[^43]. And probably it was also contained in the Sacramentary book which the Lateran basilica used, so that the first Order of episcopal consecration was the Order for the consecration of the supreme pontiff, just as the Roman rite of episcopal ordination was the rite of ordination of the Roman bishop[^44]. But afterwards the words which were adapted to the pontiff alone were omitted, as in the Leonine and Gelasian, and were presented under their own title, as in the Gregorian.

It is worthy of note that those words of Leo the Great already speak of the conferral of both powers—of order: *the ministry of the highest priesthood*, and of jurisdiction: *the pontifical chair for governing your church*—and therefore confirm our arguments presented in the first chapter.

The rite itself is first determined by the most ancient *Ordo De ordinatione pontificis* contained in formula 57 of the *Liber Diurnus*[^45] and transcribed in many manuscript codices of collections of *Ordines* and of the so-called "Romano-Germanic" *Pontifical* of the tenth century[^46], and designated as number XL by the most recent editor of the Roman *Ordines*[^47]. Since it is the root of all *Ordines* of later times, it seems fitting to append it here, and indeed according to the Ambrosian codex published in phototypic edition[^48].

*On the ordination of a pontiff. Let them chant according to custom; the elect proceeds from the secretarium with seven candles and comes to the confession. And after the litany, he ascends to the throne, together with the bishops and presbyters; then the Bishop of Albano gives the first prayer, next the Bishop of Porto gives the prayer, afterwards the Gospels are brought and opened over the head of the elect by the deacons. Then the Bishop of Ostia consecrates him as pontiff; after this the archdeacon places the pallium upon him, then he ascends to the throne, gives peace to all the priests, and says "Glory to God in the highest."*

Concerning the antiquity of this Order, there is no doubt, since it forms part of the first series of formulas of the *Liber Diurnus* collected around the year 625; however, that it is even more ancient is established from the fact that in the described solemnity, the Litany is prescribed to be sung together with the Gloria. Pope Symmachus (498-514) established that the Gloria should be sung on feast days of martyrs and on Sundays; however, Gregory the Great prohibited the Litany from being sung together with the Gloria. Since, therefore, our Order prescribes that both the Gloria and the Litany be sung in the same solemnity, it must have arisen after Symmachus and before Gregory, still in the sixth century[^49].

What is particularly distinctive of this ordination, besides the specification of the persons performing the ordination and the imposition of the pallium, is especially that the ordained person himself completes the Mass; for this reason, Innocent III was later able to decree that the Roman Pontiff, and he alone, could confer episcopal orders at his own episcopal ordination[^50].

The rite of imposing the book of the Gospels upon the head of the elect, which derives its origin from the Eastern Church and has been known in the Western Church since the fourth century, appears to have been observed initially in the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff alone[^51].

Another most ancient Order of the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff exists, forming part of the Order *De gradibus Romanae ecclesiae*, still designated number IX following Mabillon, but XXXVI by Andrieu[^52], whose oldest manuscript codex is St. Gall 614, dating from the second half of the ninth century[^53]; it also exists as Order XL in certain codices of the Romano-Germanic Pontifical[^54], but derives from sources preceding the ninth century[^55].

Regarding the rite, [this order] determines more precisely and describes more exactly the beginning and end of the consecration, and it adds the singing of acclamations, which are called the *Laudes*[^56], and it deals in the second part with the coronation and the procession on horseback to the Lateran Palace, concerning which matters [it treats] in the third part. It was not composed in order to be used in place of Order XL, but it presupposes the use of that [order], since, for example, it does not determine which bishops are to ordain, but introduces the first, second, etc.

A special form of the Order from the Diurnal Book is exhibited by the Order, or better, the collection of Orders, which is called the *Ancient Roman Order*[^57] under the title *Order for How the Roman Pontiff is to be Ordained*; for it takes up the text or the beginnings of the text of prayers and the text added in the consecratory prayer from the Gregorian Sacramentary into the Order itself. This form passes into the Roman Pontifical of the 12th and 13th centuries[^58].

At the end of the 13th century, a new Order for the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff was written, probably for this reason: because both the Order developed in the Pontificals and the other one (XXXVI), although it was again employed through its adoption into the canonical collections of Cardinal Deusdedit[^59] and Anselmus of Lucca[^60] and the later recension of Polycarpus (Cf. below n. 150.)[^61], was of little use to those who directed the ceremony itself, describing the ceremony only in summary fashion.

The New Order, providing a lengthy description of the entire consecration, passed into the ceremonial book of Cardinal Giacomo Gaetani Stefaneschi[^62] and, in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, also into the Pontifical with a description of the solemn ceremonies following the consecration, namely the ceremonial ride to the Lateran Palace[^63]. Augustinus Patricius, in his reformation of the Pontifical, omitted the order of papal consecration, since he wished to present only those elements that would have validity for all bishops[^64]. He himself, in his ceremonial book, compiled a new Order of papal consecration from preceding sources, adding what seemed necessary to him and changing what had become antiquated[^65]. This Order was again incorporated into the edition of the Pontifical in the sixteenth century[^66]. Nevertheless, the reformation of the Pontifical under Clement VIII and Urban VIII definitively omitted it.

The rite of consecration to bishop itself remained completely unchanged from the most ancient times until the period when the influence of the Frankish kingdom's liturgy was exercised even in Rome, especially in the tenth century. At that time, the tradition of symbols was introduced into ordination, applied for the Supreme Pontiff in the tradition of the ring, since the Supreme Pontiff did not use a staff; anointing was introduced, and the introductory formulas at the beginning of the consecratory prayer were expanded, just as in the preface of the Mass[^67]. The use of the miter became established in the eleventh century, probably with its solemn tradition in consecration in the same century[^68]. Finally, in the fifteenth century, the custom began of singing the hymn *Veni Creator* before the anointing, which previously had still been expressly prohibited in the inserted Pontifical Order[^69].

To complete what has been said, it will be helpful to add some details from the practice of more recent times. From the year 1500 onward, only seven pontiffs have been elected who were not distinguished by episcopal character: Pius III (1503), Leo X (1513), Clement VIII (1592), Clement XI (1700), Clement XIV (1769), Pius VI (1775), Gregory XVI (1831). For their consecration as bishop, there existed the ceremonial order of the Roman Ceremonial of Augustinus Patricius, which however is antiquated and incomplete. Thus Gregory XV already deputized the master of ceremonies and prefect of the Vatican archives, Michael Leonicus, to correct the Roman Ceremonial[^70]. The work, however, was not completed; fragments of it exist in various manuscript codices of the Barberini (Vatican) library[^71], among which some items concerning papal consecration are also found that are worthy of consideration in Barb. lat. 2975 (around the middle of the codex, not marked with folio numbers) and Barb. lat. 2963 and 2964. For the consecration of Pius III, Johannes Burckardus, master of ceremonies under Pope Alexander VI, drew up a special order[^72]; for the consecration of Clement XI there exists a special order in manuscript codex tom. III vol. 101 a (formerly E 12) of the archive of the masters of ceremonies and the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies fol. 279-297[^73]; for the consecration of Pius VI, the order was written by Josephus Dini, master of ceremonies of that same pontiff, preserved in codex tom. III vol. 101 of the same archive (written in Dini's own hand) and 102 (a copy of the former)[^74]. Dini also gives valuable information regarding certain changes admitted in the consecration during the eighteenth century in the preface fol. 2-6, which is entitled: *Observations on the variations made in the function of the Consecration as Bishop of the new Pontiff, opposed to what the Roman Ceremonial of Augustinus Patricius prescribes*, of which he enumerates three: the first and second prayers were omitted, the consecration was performed not between the seat and the altar but on the throne, the book of the gospels and hands were imposed upon the pontiff while seated, whereas Clement XIV again correctly genuflected before the faldstool according to proper usage. These facts testify that lesser diligence and attention was attributed to the episcopal consecration of the supreme pontiff, so that the venerable rite itself was changed in its essential elements, which is indeed explained by the fact that this happened so rarely, while at the same time it confirms the juridical significance of consecration in ancient times.

### APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II: On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff as Bishop by Leap

It is also permissible to add some remarks concerning the ordination of a pontiff by leap performed in ancient times, that is, without ordination to the priesthood in the case of the election of a deacon.

1)\ The practice of this ordination by leap was already deduced by Mabillon from Ordo IX (XXXVI)[^75], who, treating the election of a deacon or priest, has both consecrated as bishop in the same manner, saying nothing about any ordination to the priesthood of the elected deacon[^76].

2)\ This conclusion is confirmed from the Liber Pontificalis, which never narrates the ordination to the priesthood of an elected deacon, but only the consecration as bishop. So it is in the life of Valentine (827) and Nicholas I (858-867)[^77].

3)\ The singular case of the layman Constantine seems to prove ordination by leap, who after the death of Paul I (767) had been intruded by force into the supreme pontificate, and having been made a cleric was ordained in one day as subdeacon and deacon and on the following Sunday as bishop[^78]. The Council of 769 celebrated against him condemns the intruder because he, as a layman, sought to be made pontiff by armed force, saying nothing about any irregularity having occurred in his ordination[^79]; indeed, it confirms the custom of immediately consecrating an elected deacon as pontiff[^80]. In this instance the order of subdiaconate first appears as a necessary condition for higher grades of the hierarchy, and it is always commemorated in the lives of the pontiffs where they speak of the offices exercised by the pontiffs before their election[^81].

4)\ The change in discipline probably occurred in the second half of the tenth century. We have testimony of this matter in the council convened in the year 964 by John XII against Leo VIII. For Leo, having been constituted Supreme Pontiff on November 4, 963, in the presence of Emperor Otto I in the Basilica of Saint Peter, was consecrated as bishop on the following Sunday, December 6. In the intervening time, contrary to the law prescribing interstices, he had received all orders while still a layman, and indeed had been ordained in those days as doorkeeper, lector, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest[^82].

5)\ This change in discipline is explained by the aforementioned invasion of transalpine liturgy, which occurred in Rome in the tenth century. Rome, having become subject to external influences through most grievous internal disturbances, only recovered its pristine dignity as leader and teacher of liturgical and juridical life after the middle of the eleventh century[^83].

6)\ This new discipline was always observed in the following centuries. And indeed, in favor of this ordinance prescribing certain days required by law, these requirements were fulfilled even by the Supreme Pontiffs themselves. Thus Gregory VII was ordained priest on the Ember Saturday of Pentecost[^84]; Gelasius II (1118-1119) waited for the Ember Saturday[^85]; Celestine III (1191) was ordained priest on the Saturday *Sitientes*[^86], Innocent III on the Ember Saturday of Lent[^87], on the same day of the year 1272 Gregory X[^88], Nicholas III (1277) was made priest on the Ember Saturday of Advent[^89], Honorius IV (1285) again on the Ember Saturday of Pentecost[^90]. The rule therefore was, up to the year 1300, broken by no exception, that Supreme Pontiffs constituted in the diaconal order should receive ordination to the priesthood on the appointed days just like the other priests of the Roman Church, and not as a singular case, as Fischer[^91], considering only the ordination of Gregory VII and Innocent III, asserts.

7)\ The rite of this ordination was determined in the Ceremonial of Gregory X[^92], and is described more precisely by Augustinus Patricius in the Roman Ceremonial[^93]. For the ordination of Pius III to the priestly order, Johannes Burckardus wrote an account[^94]; from most recent times is the order of this ordination composed by Josephus Dini in the year 1775[^95].

These matters suffice regarding the question of ordination *per saltum* and the ordination of the pontiff to the presbyterate for juridico-historical consideration, leaving the explanation of dogmatic difficulties to the dogmaticians.

## CHAPTER III: The Competent Number of Those Ordaining

Now, dealing with those circumstances from which we have said the juridical nature of consecration emerges in a special way, we enumerate them following the order of the rescript of Emperor Honorius, examining their origin and observance, illustrating them with historical documents by which, on the one hand, legislation—whether written or introduced by custom—is demonstrated, and on the other hand, the observance itself is shown. This is done to the end that they may serve as the historical foundation of our argumentation explained in the first chapter concerning the juridical nature of the episcopal consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, especially in the first millennium. We shall also present texts from later centuries, so that they may serve both as a complement to the doctrine and so that from them the authority of the discipline introduced in preceding centuries may also be made clear in confirmation of the juridical significance indicated.

According to the Second Council of Nicaea, bishops were appointed by the co-provincial bishops under the direction of the metropolitan, with a minimum of three being required. The same prescription is evident to have been valid for ordination from the Council of Arles in the year 314[^96]. Thus we also have accounts in the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff of a plurality of ordaining bishops. Cornelius (251) *was consecrated by sixteen bishops*[^97], Boniface I (418) *with nine bishops from different provinces present*[^98]. The number three is commemorated in the consecration of the antipope Novatian (251) and of the antipope Felix II (355)[^99]. However, in the duty of consecration, it was not some metropolitan who served as principal, but rather, as also in the Carthaginian church, the pastor of the nearest diocese, that of Ostia.

This special office, at the same time a privilege on account of its dignity, the Bishop of Ostia already possessed in the time of Saint Augustine[^100], and in the Liber Pontificalis it is said to have been established by Pope Saint Mark (336), joined with another privilege, namely of using the pallium in that consecration[^101].

A writer of the Middle Ages, Robert of Monte, in his Chronicle, traces the origin of this privilege back to even more ancient times, namely to the year 261, saying: *"This bishop, namely the Bishop of Ostia, by ancient custom ordains and consecrates the Roman Pontiff; this custom arose from the fact that, after the martyrdom of blessed Sixtus and Saint Lawrence his deacon, blessed Justin the presbyter with the Roman clergy elected Dionysius as Roman Pontiff, whom Maximus, Bishop of Ostia, consecrated. From this custom thenceforth the Bishop of Ostia ordains and consecrates the Roman Pontiff, and he has the pallium only for those things which pertain to the ordination and consecration of the Roman Pontiff"*[^102]. This duty of the Bishop of Ostia is confirmed in the order of consecration of the Liber Diurnus: *"then the Bishop of Ostia consecrates him as pontiff"*[^103].

The juridical force of this privilege already becomes clear in 418 during the schism between Boniface I and Eulalius; for the Bishop of Ostia, then deceived by Eulalius, had consecrated him, which is explained by Symmachus in his favor, so that the emperor could issue a rescript concerning the competent number of those ordaining[^104].

In those centuries, the office of the Bishop of Ostia was considered so customary that historical documents tend to focus more on the exceptions frequently admitted by antipopes than on narrating the ordinary practice. Thus in the case of the antipope Felix II (355)[^105], Ursinus (366)[^106], Pelagius [II] (555)[^107]. He is expressly named in the consecration of Leo II (681) and John V (685)[^108]; an exception is established in the case of Constantine II (767) who was consecrated by the Bishop of Palestrina[^109]. The *custom and ancient tradition* is praised in the consecration of Benedict III (855)[^110], under which certainly the office of the Bishop of Ostia is also understood; he is named again in the consecration of Hadrian II[^111]. The council celebrated against Leo VIII in 964 objects that he had been consecrated by some bishop named Sico[^112].

This special office of the Bishop of Ostia is commemorated in the work on the Lateran church by John the Deacon (circa 1170) who says: *The Bishop of Ostia, who ought to bless and consecrate the Apostolic [Pope] before all others*[^113].

But not only was the office of the principal consecrator determined along with a certain see, but the office of the assisting bishops was likewise determined in the same manner; for certain suburbicarian bishops assisted, whom the order of consecration in the Liber Diurnus had already established: the bishops of Albano and Porto[^114]. But exceptions were not so rare. In the consecration of Leo II, the bishops of Ostia, Porto, and Velletri participated *because the church of Albano had no bishop at all*[^115]; in the same manner in the consecration of John V[^116]. The usurper Constantine had as consecrator the bishops of Albano and Porto, and in place of the bishop of Ostia, the bishop of Palestrina[^117]. The office of the bishop of Porto is confirmed in a special manner in the life of Benedict III (855-858); for he was on the side of the antipope and *by no means poured out the prayer which he ought to have offered over him* (Pope Benedict)[^118]. In the consecration of Hadrian II (867-872), the absence of the bishops of Albano and Porto is explained and those acting in their place are named[^119]; in the consecration of Stephen V (885-891), it is expressly stated that Formosus of Porto performed his duty[^120].

We also find certain determinations concerning the bishops consecrating the pontiff in texts about Pope Formosus himself, stating that he was *consecrated by those very bishops... by whom his predecessors were consecrated and to whom the right of consecrating belongs*[^121].

This custom determining the offices of bishops in the consecration of the pontiff, arising from the fact that they were the bishops nearest to the city of Rome, became a true condition of legitimate consecration, as the documents demonstrate; for it is precisely for this reason that the lives of the pontiffs insist upon it so much, because it seemed to be more than a mere accidental circumstance.

This is also excellently demonstrated by the fact that even in later centuries the authority of this custom remained intact; indeed, it determined the new rite of enthronement in the same manner, as we shall see in the second part. Let some documents therefore be added which demonstrate the usage of the 11th and 12th centuries. Thus Hugo of Verdun, speaking of the episcopal consecration of Gregory VII, establishes that *the privilege of ordination and consecration is committed to the cardinal bishops alone—those of Albano, Ostia, and Porto*[^122]. The same is affirmed by various writers on the occasion of the illegitimate enthronement of the antipope Clement III (1080), most clearly by Gebhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, saying: *But these men* (who enthroned Clement) *even if they had the office and communion, and the Roman See lacked a pastor, could nevertheless ordain no pontiff for that same See. For the privilege of this ordination has been granted by the holy fathers to the cardinal bishops alone—those of Ostia, Albano, and Porto*[^123].

Victor III (1086) was consecrated by the cardinal bishops of Ostia, Albano and the remaining cardinals[^124]; Paschal II (1099) by those of Ostia, Albano, Porto and *during the solemn celebration of Mass... they impose hands upon him, the first in the consecration* being Oddo of Ostia, who employs the pallium for this purpose[^125]. Even if this is not entirely certain, the matter is well illustrated by the case of Otto of Ostia, who according to Hugh of Flavigny, being in discord with the elected Victor III (1087) and fearing *lest perhaps he might be deprived of his dignity if the first imposition of hands in consecration were performed by another, changed sides on the day of battle*[^126]. The continuous juridical tradition is excellently illuminated by the example of the schism between Innocent II and Anacletus II (1130). For in the same manner as in the year 418, consecration performed according to tradition is invoked as a sign of the legitimate pontiff. Thus Saint Bernard writes to the bishops of Aquitaine: *What about the consecration? Do we not have the Bishop of Ostia, to whom this specifically pertains?*[^127]. Indeed, the Eastern Church also recognized Innocent based on this fact, as witnessed by the Reicherspergen Annals, which narrate: *The apostolic sees of Antioch and Jerusalem also rejected Peter of Leo [Anacletus II], but approved Innocent, because he had with him two legitimate consecrators, namely those of Albano and Ostia, while the other had one, as has been said, that of Porto*[^128]. A witness to this matter is also Pope Alexander III himself, who in the year 1159 wrote thus to the Archbishop of Genoa: *On the following Sunday, with our venerable brothers G. of Sabina, of Ostia, B. of Porto and Albano... assembled together, we received the office of consecration*[^129]. Let the final testimony concern the antipope Paschal III (1164-1168), which, even if it does not express historical truth in all respects, nevertheless well expresses the writer's amazement, indeed horror, at this unprecedented transgression of ancient law: *This man was consecrated by the Bishop of Liège without the cardinal bishops and without all the legitimate consecrators whom it was fitting should ordain the Roman Pontiff. From the very first times of Christianity up to these times, he alone was consecrated in this new and unprecedented manner and by such a consecrator*[^130].

The Orders bear witness to this same matter most abundantly, since the order from the Liber Diurnus, which already sets forth the duties of bishops, passed into the Pontifical of the Middle Ages, as we have already seen. The ceremonial book of Cencius Camerarius states that the pontiff is consecrated *especially by the Bishop of Ostia and other bishops of the curia*[^131] perhaps because the order was composed in the time of Innocent II, at whose consecration the Bishop of Porto was on the side of the antipope Anacletus[^132]. But bishops are named in the same manner as in the order of the Pontifical in the ceremonial order inserted by Cardinal Stefaneschi[^133].

Some of these cited texts seem to consider the privilege of consecration not so much as proper to the Bishops of Albano, Porto, and Ostia individually, but rather as belonging to the college of cardinals under the leadership of the Bishop of Ostia. Something similar occurred in the fifteenth century. The Bishop of Ostia himself, who at that time was not always the dean of the college, was deprived of his privilege in favor of the senior member of the college, and the other two senior cardinals became heirs to the privileges of the sees of Albano and Porto. Thus in the manuscript codex of Johannes Burckard there exists an order of consecration with a marginal note saying: *Note that the ancient books speak of the Bishops of Albano, Porto, and Ostia*. But *the rotulus of the coronation of Calixtus III states, as here concerning the three senior bishops, of whom the youngest was the Bishop of Nicea, the second the Lord Bishop of Ruvo, the third the Bishop of Genoa, who was the senior among the cardinal bishops*[^134]. The same principle is defended by Augustinus Patricius in the Roman Ceremonial, for whose compilation the orders contained in Burckard's cited codex served, saying: *as I judge, to remove contentions, it was long ago introduced that the senior among the cardinal bishops ought to perform this duty with two of the senior bishops, both for the Pope and for the Emperor. And thus we see it observed in our times, so that consideration is given not to the churches, but to episcopal seniority*[^135]. In the same place he narrates that Sixtus IV was consecrated as bishop by the Bishop of Ostia, although he was not the senior of the college, and concludes: *Therefore the senior among the cardinal bishops, or another, whoever he may be*[^136]. Pius III, however, was ordained both as priest and as bishop by the Bishop of Ostia[^137]. More recent church discipline, always assigning the see of Ostia to the dean of the college, again accords with ancient custom, yet it remains silent concerning the assisting bishops[^138].

A curious thing occurred with Boniface VIII in the year 1295. For immediately after his election, he deprived the Bishop of Ostia of the use of the pallium and received consecration from him, without restoring the pallium[^139].

In the ordination of Pius III to the priesthood (1503), the pope, immediately before ordination, conferred the pallium upon the Bishop of Ostia, who had not yet received it[^140].

We draw two general conclusions from what we have said in support of our principal argument: first, that ecclesiastical prescriptions truly existed concerning the competent number of those ordaining in the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, even though they were for the most part introduced by custom, and that these were observed in practice; second, that the observance of these prescriptions was considered a sign and argument of the legitimacy of the pontiff. Exceptions justified by sufficient reason were indeed admitted, easily as regards assisting bishops, less so as regards the principal consecrating Bishop of Ostia, who should have been present at least through his archpresbyter[^141]. *The competent number of those ordaining is therefore truly an argument for the juridical nature of consecration, even if partial*.

## CHAPTER IV: The Solemnity of Legitimate Time

According to the requirement of consecration in the rescript of Emperor Honorius from the year 419, the solemnity of time is established. The custom of consecrating bishops on Sunday, both in the East and in the West, is of most ancient origin[^142]. At Rome, as Saint Hippolytus testifies, already around the year 180 Sunday existed as the customary day for episcopal ordination[^143]. This venerable custom perhaps drew its origin from the influence of Eastern discipline, but it is equally possible that both the Eastern and Western Church became accustomed to consecrate bishops on Sunday in the same manner and without mutual influence, with this purpose and reason: that the preeminence of the bishop in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice might also be expressed in this way—that he would be consecrated on the principal day for celebrating this sacrifice and within this same sacrifice itself[^144].

In the schism of the years 418-419, we also saw this law explained and advocated by the prefect Symmachus in favor of the deacon Eulalius, which is the clearest argument that the legitimate day of consecration was already at that time a sign of the legitimacy of a pontiff in general. The deacon Eulalius had occupied the Lateran palace with his followers and remained there for two days, so that he might await the customary day on which he could be solemnly ordained[^145], while Boniface had been consecrated on the vigil of Sunday in the church of St. Marcellus. For this reason the emperor had said that he was amazed that there were some who, having scorned solemnity, hastened concerning the ordination of another[^146]. However, the letter of those who elected Boniface to the emperor demonstrates that Sunday was at that time understood to be the liturgical day, since they insist that the consecration was celebrated at the proper time[^147].

The juridical force of this circumstance of consecration is also made clear from that word of the emperor, in which he counts it among all those things on account of whose absence he considers his own rescript to be truly superfluous[^148].

The more ancient orders of consecration do not expressly state that it ought to be done on Sunday. However, the Order of the Liber Diurnus suggests this conclusion, since the Gloria, which it commands to be sung, was sung only on Sundays and feast days of martyrs[^149]. The second order of consecration (XXXVI) assigns consecration to Sunday only in that form which Deusdedit and Anselm of Lucca exhibit, and the more recent form of the collection of Polycarp[^150].

The concordance between Deusdedit and Anselm of Lucca allows us to draw the conclusion in this matter that both ordinals drew the words *die vero dominica* from some common source unknown to us[^151], and that it should not be ascribed as an addition by Deusdedit himself. Nevertheless, we believe it to be of no significance that the ancient ordinals do not expressly establish this, since there was a constant custom of consecrating bishops on Sunday, at least up to the year 1000[^152], even though the ancient ordinal, under the influence of Gallican liturgy, also admits feast days of the apostles as suitable days for the consecration of bishops[^153]. However, Pseudo-Isidore also establishes that it ought to be done on Sunday[^154]. All later ordinals agree on this matter: Cencius (XII)[^155], Cardinal Stefaneschi[^156]; the Roman Ceremonial of Augustinus Patricius indeed admits any day for private consecration, but considers Sunday or a feast day more appropriate[^157].

Having considered the legislation of the Church concerning the day of consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, it will also be helpful to examine historical documents regarding its observance. We have already seen the most ancient testimony from the year 418, which already speaks of an ancient custom. It is not surprising for this reason that there are not many explicit testimonies, since this concerned an ordinary matter. Exceptions to the rule established by venerable antiquity would have attracted greater attention. Nevertheless, they are not lacking. Thus in the life of Hadrian II (867)[^158], Stephen V (885)[^159], Leo III (795)[^160]; and earlier in the case of Gregory the Great[^161]. The editor of the papal registers always assumes the fact of consecration on Sunday, and uses this as a heuristic principle for discovering the date[^162]. Of a later period, for example, is the consecration on Sunday of blessed Eugene III (1145)[^163]. Up to Pius III (1503), who himself was consecrated on a Sunday[^164], according to Michels the only known exception is that of Boniface IX in the year 1389, who had been consecrated on a Tuesday[^165].

Concerning the determination of the next Sunday, it must be said that this was indeed the rule, but one subject to many exceptions during the time when a messenger was sent to the emperor between the election and consecration, especially in the seventh century[^166]. It is emphasized again in the Ordo of Cencius[^167].

Concerning the hour of consecration, Michels proposes the following: that the pontiff was initially consecrated on Sunday morning up to the fourth century, and later, in the time after Constantine the Great, with the development of the celebration of vigils, consecration could also take place at night; but the ancient custom revives with the declining use of vigils, so that the pontiff would again be consecrated only in the morning[^168]. This is also established by the order of Cardinal Stefaneschi[^169].

## CHAPTER V: The Quality of Place

We have seen that the third circumstance, which the imperial rescript of the year 419 says pertains to the ancient custom of the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, consists in the quality of place. Again, not only the practice and custom but also the juridical importance of this circumstance is excellently recognized from those events.

Eulalius with his followers violently seized the Lateran palace and after two days was consecrated by the Bishop of Ostia in that same basilica. Along with the two elements already explained, a third element is also invoked in his favor by the prefect Symmachus, namely, the quality of place, so that the emperor could say that everything necessary for legitimacy was lacking in Boniface's case. For [Boniface] had been consecrated in the church of Saint Marcellus, not by the Bishop of Ostia, and at a time that was also illegitimate according to the opinion suggested to the emperor[^170]. Indeed, all the aforementioned facts, except for the matter of time, were also against Eulalius; for he coerced the Bishop of Ostia and violently held the palace, but the external appearance was in his favor. The electors of Boniface, on the other hand, attempted to demonstrate the legitimacy of Boniface's consecration, arguing that he was consecrated at the proper time by nine bishops[^171]. However, they say nothing about the legitimate place, but only speak in a general manner, saying that he was consecrated *after all things that the solemnity required*[^172]. Although many other arguments were present against Eulalius regarding the number and freedom of the electors, nevertheless they do not argue from these points, but recognizing the truth and juridical validity of the circumstances presented in the imperial rescript, they argue that these circumstances are verified in their own election. Therefore, they implicitly concede that there exists also a certain prescription regarding the place of consecration, one indeed established by venerable custom, that the Roman bishop ought to be consecrated in the Lateran basilica, so that his consecration, and consequently his authority, may be legitimate.

Other testimonies to the consecration of popes in the Lateran Basilica are not lacking. Pope Damasus was consecrated there (366)[^173]; except for the antipope Ursinus, who had been consecrated by the Bishop of Tivoli and in the Basilica of Julius, or according to another tradition of Licinius, he was considered illegitimate according to that double consideration[^174]. Pope Symmachus (498) had been consecrated in the legitimate place[^175]; the antipope Laurentius, on the contrary, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major[^176]; the antipope Dioscorus (530) also wished to be consecrated in the legitimate place, while Boniface II (530) only under compulsion received consecration in the Basilica of Julius[^177]. From all these cases we can rightly conclude with Duchesne[^178] that the legitimate place for the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff during the time of the Christian emperors and the Gothic kings was the Lateran Basilica.

A change in discipline, however, occurred during the time of the Byzantine emperors; at precisely what time and for what reason, we do not know. The pontificate of St. Gregory the Great establishes the terminus ante quem, who commanded that *no consecration should take place at the altar of blessed Peter's hands, except that of the Roman Pontiff*[^179]. St. Gregory himself had already been consecrated in the Basilica of St. Peter[^180]. We can perhaps see some vestige of the new discipline's beginning in the fact that the electors of Boniface I in the year 418, after the consecration performed in the church of Saint Marcellus, proceeded in solemn procession to the basilica of blessed Peter[^181].

The ancient order of the Liber Diurnus says nothing about the place of consecration. However, another order (XXXVI) already declares that it should take place at [the basilica of] blessed Peter[^182]. The medieval Pontifical presents the order of consecration of the pontiff under the inscription *Here begins the order by which the Roman Pontiff ought to be ordained at the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle*[^183].

The fact of this ordination in the church of blessed Peter is frequently commemorated in the lives of the pontiffs; for example, Constantine II (767)[^184], Stephen III (768)[^185], Stephen IV (816)[^186], Valentine (827)[^187], Benedict III (855)[^188], Nicholas I (858)[^189], Adrian II (867)[^190], Stephen V (885)[^191], Leo VIII (963)[^192]. The influence of this discipline was also present in the rite of enthronement, as we shall see in the second part.

In the eleventh century, supreme pontiffs who were not bishops were consecrated at the altar of St. Peter. Thus, for example, Stephen X (1057) was consecrated at Saint Peter's[^193]; likewise Gregory VII[^194], Victor III[^195], Paschal II[^196]. In the twelfth century we have the example of the antipope Anacletus II (1130), worthy of special mention, since his consecration was put forward as a sign of his legitimacy[^197], while the true pope Innocent II was forced to be consecrated in the basilica of St. Mary the New[^198].

Eugenius III (1145), *due to the enormity of persecution*, changing custom[^199], was consecrated at Farfa, but such consecration outside the City was considered an exception to the rule, as witnessed by Cardinal Boso who said: *He ought to have received the office of consecration at blessed Peter's, as the order of custom demanded and as had been arranged*[^200]. Alexander III was consecrated outside Rome at Ninfa, not far from the City (*behold*, how he excuses himself!)[^201], while the antipope Victor IV held the basilica of blessed Peter and was consecrated there[^202].

Nevertheless, Innocent III was able to follow the ancient custom once again[^203]. But the exceptions become even more numerous in the 13th century. Honorius III is ordained at Perugia[^204], Innocent IV at Anagni[^205]; very many bishops are elected and enthroned outside the City, by which it came to pass that the relations between the City and especially the church of Saint Peter and the institution of pontiffs were further loosened[^206]. Gregory X (a Gaul!) proved to be a cultivator of the ancient custom, who undertook the journey to Rome to receive consecration and was there consecrated in the basilica of blessed Peter[^207]. So also Nicholas III[^208], Honorius IV[^209], Boniface VIII[^210]. Nevertheless, Martin IV [was consecrated] outside Rome but near the Old City (Orvieto)[^211], Celestine V in the city of Aquila[^212].

Therefore, there can be no discussion of a strict precept, indeed not even of constant observance, regarding the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff in the Basilica of Blessed Peter in the thirteenth century. It was performed in places that circumstances required; nor was such a consecration ever considered illegitimate. Thus the commemoration of pontiffs in Gaul brought nothing new regarding this circumstance of consecration, except insofar as the exception assumed a certain stability. Nevertheless, appropriateness was always emphasized, and thus the ordines always determined the consecration of the pontiff primarily for the church of Saint Peter and only in an appendix for the case in which it would be celebrated outside the City[^213]. And even in this case, special ceremonies were employed upon entering the city of Rome. The stable residence at the Vatican palace, established after the Avignon exile, again restored the ancient custom, so that in more recent and most recent times, if a consecration should occur, it is celebrated in the Basilica of Blessed Peter or of the Vatican palace.

Having therefore completed the treatment of those three circumstances of the episcopal consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, it remains for us to say something about another rite performed from antiquity after the election of the pontiff, and indeed in a solemn manner, and its relation to consecration according to juridical respect, namely, concerning the introduction into the Lateran palace.

## CHAPTER VI: On the Relation Between the Institution of the Supreme Pontiff and His Introduction into the Lateran Palace

We do not wish in this chapter to treat all the questions that are connected with the introduction into the Lateran Palace during the course of the Middle Ages, but only to set forth those things which flow from the notion of the institution, especially therefore its relationship with consecration.

In the first part we wish to examine and reject the opinion proposed by H. Grauert[^214] that the introduction into the palace was the proper form of institution in the juridical sense of the supreme pontiff; in the second part we positively determine the relationship between introduction and consecration.

These are approximately the things that are established by Grauert:

1)\ Today the supreme pontiff obtains the right in the matter (*ius in re*) by election alone being accepted; in the Middle Ages, however, only the right to the matter (*ius ad rem*). Another act was necessary by which the right in the matter (*ius in re*) was conferred upon him. These things correspond to the principles of Frankish law concerning immovable property, which distinguished between tradition and investiture. These principles were also applied to the conferral of episcopal offices and to papal elections[^215].

2)\ The act by which the pontiff obtained the right to the thing (*ius ad rem*) was the election. The act by which he obtained the right in the thing (*ius in re*) up until the ninth century was the introduction into the Lateran Palace, which therefore was equivalent to the real investiture then in force in Frankish law. The arguments are nearly the same as those we have advanced for demonstrating the juridical nature of consecration, namely: a) the cited formulae of the *Liber Diurnus* and the letter to the clergy of Scotland from the year 640, which demonstrate that after the election, those still serving continued to discharge the office of the apostolic see[^216]; b) the fact established from the council of the year 769 and the lives of the pontiffs Valentine, Leo IV, and Benedict III, that the supreme pontiff was clothed in papal vestments only after the introduction had been completed and was thereafter adored by clergy and people as lord of the Roman church[^217].

3)\ This real investiture gives way in the tenth century to symbolic investiture, just as also occurred in Frankish law regarding immovable property at that time. This symbolic investiture of the pontiff consists in the cloaking of the pontiff performed immediately after the election[^218].

The conclusion therefore is that the introduction was the solemn institution of the pontiff (even if he does not use this word) in our juridical sense, by which the right in the thing is also conferred upon the elect, who through election obtained the right to the thing, and that it was equivalent to the real investiture of Frankish law. This opinion therefore attributes to the introduction all those effects, so to speak, which we have ascribed to consecration. What then should be said?

Regarding the first point, those arguments are valid which we stated in the introduction concerning the notion of institution. We therefore admit those notions, but not in the sense as if it were truly a matter of the translation and conferral of the right itself, but only of its exercise, since the full and supreme right is obtained *immutably* and always by divine law once the election has been accepted. Those notions of *ius ad rem* and *ius in re*, of investiture and tradition, provide suitable means for conceiving the singular matter *sui generis* in the institution of the pontiff. Nor is it a question of the direct influence of Frankish law on the election and institution of the pontiff, as if a quasi-reception of Frankish juridical principles had been made, but rather of a more indirect influence, which found already existing elements, as is clear from our demonstration, so that something entirely new was not introduced but rather something already existing was conceived through a new mode, using those elements that were consonant and suitable to the new juridical ideas[^219]. When dealing with the origin of enthronement, we shall find a similar situation.

Regarding the second point: a) we say that those arguments drawn from the formulas of the *Liber Diurnus* and the letter of the year 640 presuppose a pontiff elected but not consecrated, not however a pontiff elected and not introduced. For in those times, introduction into the palace followed immediately after the election, since often the election itself was celebrated there, which the very examples cited by Grauert prove and which he himself expressly states[^220], not perceiving that by that very fact there was no intermediate time during which, according to his opinion, those serving could have performed the function of the apostolic see.

Thus Valentinus, as soon as he was found in the basilica of Saint Mary Major, was *led to the Lateran patriarchate... and placed upon the pontifical throne*[^221]; Leo IV was *compelled unwillingly from the church of the Four Crowned Saints where he was residing... whereupon they drew him away and conducted him with hymns and special praises to the Lateran patriarchate*[^222]. Benedict III *having been drawn away from that same titular church (of Calixtus)... leading him to the Lateran patriarchate, they placed him upon the pontifical throne*[^223]. This had already been done even in earlier times, as in the election of Stephen III[^224], Philip[^225], Stephen the priest, who although he was installed is not counted in the series of pontiffs, since he was not consecrated[^226], and Stephen II[^227]. Even the council of the year 769 intimately connects election and installation, saying: *And after the pontiff has been elected and led to the patriarchate, then...*[^228]

Regarding the argument produced under b) concerning adoration after introduction, we say that it was indeed performed truly before consecration and after introduction, but that it is not a sufficient argument for attributing those juridical effects to the introduction which clear and numerous arguments demonstrate belong to consecration. That adoration is explained by the fact that the awareness has never been fully extinguished that the elected pope possesses all power and is worthy of all honor already after the election, concerning which matter we shall speak later. Moreover, in that adoration there is expressed the relationship of obedience and recognition which already obtains between the pontiff and his clergy and people through the accepted election. And even if the pope at that time had possessed only a right to the thing (*ius ad rem*), as a pope to be consecrated and a *future* lord he could be adored. Furthermore, we do not assert that the introduction produced no juridical effects whatsoever; which effects it undoubtedly has, we shall explain immediately, and those are sufficient so that he could be adored without contradiction. Finally, we can also argue from the decree of Nicholas II, which, speaking of the preceding form of institution, says that it was consecration, but not introduction into the palace, which introduction, even taking place in a later period, is not understood why it should be substituted by another act.

Regarding the third point, namely concerning the moment of the bestowal of the mantle, we shall speak in the proper place. Here we note only that neither the introduction nor the bestowal of the mantle has a direct relationship with the power of the pope, and if we wish to speak at all of real investiture, we cannot recognize it either in the introduction or in the bestowal of the mantle, but only in consecration, which, for the reasons adduced at the beginning of our dissertation, has a real relation and connection with the exercise of power.

Having thus rejected the opinion that the introduction into the palace had the significance of an institution in that sense which we proved for consecration, we wish to establish positively what juridical importance was inherent in the introduction. A great difficulty stands in the way of this purpose, namely that we have historical testimonies concerning the introduction into the palace with descriptions of the ceremonies employed only from those centuries in which the original juridical symbolism had already been replaced by a more moral-mystical symbolism, as the ordines of the Middle Ages demonstrate[^229]. Thus the original juridical meaning and historical origin are extracted with difficulty.

The first description of the ceremonies is provided by the life of Paschal II (1099-1118) in the Liber Pontificalis[^230], to which the description contained in the ordo of Cencius Camerarius is almost equivalent, which Kösters believes to have originated already in the time of Innocent II[^231]. The rite manifestly has two parts, one to be performed in the Lateran basilica, the other in the palace. Each has several different acts. The first part in the basilica includes sitting on the seat *ante porticum* known and famous under the name of the *stercoraria* seat[^232].

Afterward, [the newly elected pope is] to sit in the *patriarchal seat* of that basilica[^233], and there to receive the adoration of the clergy. Then in the second part of the ritual, [he is] to sit in the palace, to sit on two curule chairs, girded in the first with a belt bearing seven keys and seven seals; to receive the ferula in the second, to sit or to pass through the other places of the palace reserved solely for Roman pontiffs[^234]. The juridical effect is expressed in the life of Paschal [II] in that the pontiff fulfilled the manner of election through those acts.

The ceremonial procedures of both parts appear to have the same origin and juridical significance. For they seem to have derived their origin from the ceremonies and solemnities customary among the Romans in the alienation and acquisition of possession of immovable property, traces of which we can recognize in those symbolic acts. The Romans practiced the handing over of keys in order to grant possession of things contained in warehouses, as is proven by the fragment of Papinian 74 D. 18, 1[^235], and during the medieval period keys were handed over in the alienation of buildings in general[^236]. The ferula is a most ancient symbol for signifying authority[^237].

The historical origin and juridical significance of all those ceremonies would therefore be the taking of possession of the material goods of the Roman Church; and in the handing over of the keys we could recognize the handing over of the palace and basilica, in the handing over of the staff the handing over of authority over the servants of the palace, in the handing over of the belt with precious stones the handing over of the treasury of the palace, the vestments, etc.[^238] — Similar appears to be the significance of the various seats in the palace, namely, the taking of possession through the act of sitting in the places proper to the pontiff in the palace, which he inhabits. The original purpose of these seats according to Zoepffel was to give occasion to the pontiff, wearied by a long series of ceremonies, to rest[^239].

If finally concerning the Germanic or Roman origin of these symbols, the question is not easily determined. And concerning each one a proper examination ought to be made. Often ancient Roman law employed similar symbols as the law of the Germans; it must be said that these are a common Indo-Germanic inheritance[^240]. We also do not know to what extent the customs and solemnities of the Roman emperors determined the ceremonial actions of the pontiffs. We do not know how great an influence of the Germanic peoples in this matter is to be estimated, so that the work of very many investigations would be needed to decide all these questions. We conclude therefore in general only by saying that the introduction was probably an installation into possession of the temporal goods of the Roman Church, but did not have the character of an institution in our explained sense, since the necessary relation to the exercise of supreme power of jurisdiction is lacking.

But these matters do not entirely suffice to explain all the ceremonies with which this procession was surrounded, for the equestrian ride itself was adorned to the highest degree with rituals and pomp. We have another element for explaining this matter, one that indeed derives from the consecration. This matter is connected with the transfer of the consecration from the Lateran Basilica to the Basilica of Blessed Peter. Even if the pontiff had already been introduced into the palace (in the case where the election was celebrated there), he returned in solemn fashion to the palace after the consecration. If the introduction had not been made immediately after the election, it was now also performed. This solemn equestrian ride therefore presupposes the transfer of the consecration. And since it was a distinctive element, it also remained even when the ceremonies themselves that were to be performed in the palace were no longer observed (from the 16th century onwards)[^241], and indeed it remained as the principal part until the year 1870, when the execution of this final vestige of ancient rituals and of consecration in the Lateran Basilica was rendered impossible.

This solemn equestrian ride was indeed performed with the greatest pomp, as was proper for the supreme pontiff, but bishops and cardinals also performed a similar ceremony after their consecration or creation. Thus a certain medieval Pontifical says of bishops: *A miter is placed upon him. And thus attired, he returns ceremoniously to his lodging, having been consecrated*[^242] and concerning cardinals there exists the specific title *How cardinals go to their churches after ordination* in the ceremonial collection of the 12th century *Gesta pauperis scholaris Albini*[^243] describing this solemnity.

## CHAPTER VII: Recapitulation of the Conclusions of the First Part

We establish here certain theses encompassing the conclusions of the first part, so that we may better recognize the principles and connect them with what follows.

1)\ The institution of the Supreme Pontiff is a solemn act following election and equipped with a relationship to the ordinary exercise of supreme power.

2)\ This relationship can be present in a twofold manner: directly, so that the institution is the terminus after which ordinary exercise of jurisdiction begins; indirectly, so that the act of institution manifests the legitimacy of the pontiff, which manifestation results in a direct relationship with the exercise of jurisdiction.

3)\ The consecration of the Supreme Pontiff in the first millennium was an act of institution in this sense and in this twofold manner: first, because it was the true terminus of the exercise of jurisdiction; second, because it was equipped with certain external signs, which are to be considered as manifest visible signs of the pontiff's legitimacy. These signs referred to the competent number of those ordaining, the solemnity of the time, and the quality of the place.

4)\ Concerning these external signs, both the material element has been proven—that they truly existed both in legislation and in observance—and the formal element, namely, that asserted juridical force was attributed to them.

5)\ The introduction into the Lateran Palace did not have the character of institution in the sense explained, but was an installation into possession of the temporal goods of the Roman Church.

6)\ The reason why consecration could be made a form of institution is, on the one hand, the perpetual and constant custom of not electing bishops to the supreme pontificate (external occasion), and on the other hand, the connection between the power of jurisdiction and the power of orders and their exercise (internal reasoning).

# SECOND PART: ON THE FORM OF INTHRONIZATION INSTITUTION FROM THE 10TH-14TH CENTURIES

## CHAPTER VIII: *Inthronization was the form of institution for bishops elected as pontiffs*

In treating the consecration of supreme pontiffs, we have already seen how momentous was that law or custom prohibiting the translation of bishops and consequently the election of bishops as supreme pontiffs. The act of episcopal consecration throughout the course of many centuries was the ordinary institution, ordered and determined by various rules and customs. When an exception was made even in a completely singular case, an entirely new question arose that was simultaneously ceremonial-liturgical and juridical. What was to be done? Regarding the power of orders, nothing was necessary in that case. However, regarding the juridical significance of consecration, the question had to be resolved. What was already being established demonstrates once again that in consecration something other than the sacramental act was considered, which ought to exist as a survivor in another manner and another form, namely the juridical significance, the nature of consecration as an act of institution. That our argumentation has entered upon the correct path is proven by the subsequent history of the form of institution of the pontiff. But so that we may better understand how momentous was this question to be solved in the case of the election of a bishop, and how the election of a bishop of this kind was, as it were, a juridical and ceremonial revolution, we wish to premise some things about that law prohibiting bishops from being elected as pontiffs in the 9th century.

Various testimonies exist demonstrating the authority of this custom as firm beyond all doubt. We collect the principal ones in this place.

1)\ The Roman Council celebrated in the year 769 under Stephen III still confirmed the ancient discipline, establishing: "It was fitting that this most holy lady, our Roman Church, should be properly ordained according to what was instituted by blessed Peter and his successors, and that one from among the cardinal priests or deacons should be consecrated to the summit of the apostolate"[^244]. And although the council wished to condemn the election of any layman, nevertheless it bears witness, as it were obliquely, to the discipline and authority of the ancient law, indeed of the law confirmed by the authority of the Prince of the Apostles.

2)\ The same matter is asserted still more clearly and briefly by the order of consecration of the pontiff XXXVI (Mabillon IX), saying: "For when the Supreme Pontiff is blessed, one is chosen from among the cardinals..., either a priest or a deacon: for he cannot be a bishop"[^245]. Therefore the election of Marinus, the first bishop made pope contrary to the established canons, was said to be improper[^246].

3)\ Well known are the disturbances to which the election of the Bishop of Porto, Formosus, gave occasion, whose adversaries always had the same argument: namely, that his election was illegitimate as he was already a bishop[^247]. Stephen VI (896-897) placed him dead before the sight of a council, stripped him of papal vestments and clothed him in lay garments, and ordered that two fingers of his right hand be cut off and cast into the Tiber[^248]. This abominable action was the means by which he sought to justify himself as the legitimate pontiff. For he himself had been Bishop of Anagni before his election to the pontificate, and indeed had been consecrated by Formosus; now, having been made pontiff, in order to declare his own episcopal consecration invalid, he decreed that all the ordinations of Formosus had been illegitimate and invalid[^249].

4)\ The election of John X (914-928), who was Archbishop of Ravenna, also bears witness that it was illegitimate and made contrary to canonical authority: "Acting against canonical institutions, contrary to law and right, John the tenth thus obtained the papal summit, he who had invaded the Roman see from the bishopric of Ravenna"[^250].

5)\ How firm this conviction was—that a bishop could not be elected Pope—even in later times, when so many and such great exceptions had been admitted that even legislation had abandoned its ancient rigor[^251], is proven by the example from the year 1087, when the cardinals were deliberating about electing the Bishop of Ostia as pontiff, some of them affirmed that this would be against the canons; whereupon they withdrew from that election[^252].

6)\ Perhaps this was also the intention of the not entirely clear sentence of the so-called Dictatus Abrincensis, which states: *No bishop* (unless) *in the pope to be ordained*. This, however, is not certain, since it is not established that the added particle *unless* was by a later hand, and others affirm that *in papa* stands for *a papa*[^253].

In the ninth century, three exceptions were made to that rule, namely the election of Marinus (882), bishop of Caere[^254], Formosus (891), bishop of Porto, Stephen VI (896), bishop of Anagni; again, three bishops were elected as pontiffs in the tenth century as far as we know, namely John X (914), archbishop of Ravenna, John XIII (965), bishop of Narni, Gregory V (996), archbishop of Piacenza. There are few records of that time in general; the *Liber Pontificalis* is silent about the ignominy of the Roman church of that obscure century; but they suffice so that, guided by the knowledge drawn from the first part, especially concerning the juridical nature of the institution, we can also understand the institution of these bishops elected to the papacy.

If we examine the documents that narrate the election and beginning of the pontificate of these pontiffs, we find a consistent manner of speaking; for just as previously there was very frequently discourse about consecration, now there is talk of the *enthronement* of pontiffs. Thus it is said concerning the first bishop elected to the papacy, Marinus, in a small work written regarding the case of Pope Formosus, whose title is "*Invective against Rome in favor of Pope Formosus*"[^255]; *For he was bishop of Cerveteri, not one of the seven [suburbicarian bishops], like Formosus, but one from outside [Rome]. Nevertheless, for reasons of utility and necessity, not from pride, but by the calling and election of the Roman people, just like Formosus, he was enthroned in the holy and apostolic see*[^256].

Concerning Formosus, the same Invective narrates: The bishops, together with the sacred Lateran clergy, enthroned him[^257] and again: in the seat of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles... they enthroned him[^258], or we understand that your patron Formosus the pope... was elected by bishops, clergy, and people to receive the summit of apostolic sublimity and was enthroned by such pontifical officials in the sacred seat...[^259] and to a certain bishop it is said: you enthroned him in the most sublime citadel of the apostolic see[^260]. Concerning Formosus likewise, the Roman Council of the year 904 also speaks, saying: Amolo of Turin said: Silvester of Porto, speak, were you present at the election of Pope Formosus? Who said: I was present, and we all enthroned him[^261]. Concerning Stephen VI and John X, more exact records are lacking. Nevertheless, concerning John XIII it is said: Then by all the Roman people, John, bishop of the church of Narni, is elected and is enthroned as pontiff of the apostolic see[^262].

It should be added that never in the ninth and tenth centuries is the term "enthronement" applied to designate the installation of a pontiff who was not a bishop. Therefore, given the general condition of the sources of that time, we can conclude that the term was used to designate only the installation of a bishop elected as pope[^263].

This mode of speaking is confirmed in the eleventh century, when under the influence of Emperor Henry III many bishops were elected as pontiffs. Concerning the pontiffs of the first half of this century, we know almost nothing regarding our subject matter, but concerning the second part the matter is very clear. Thus it is said that Clement II (1046), bishop of Bamberg[^264], was enthroned, as was Damasus II (1048), bishop of Brixen[^265], Leo IX (1049), Victor II (1055)[^266]; concerning Stephen IX it is expressly said that he was consecrated while he was abbot[^267]; the enthronement of Bishop Benedict X (1058), who was an antipope, is narrated[^268], as well as that of Nicholas II (1059)[^269]. Here we must pause to examine the institution according to the rite for bishops, since we have concerning this matter a decree of Nicholas II himself issued in the Roman council of the year 1059. But before we discuss that decree, something must be said about the terms employed in narrating the institution.

For there exist many documents which speak equally of consecration and of enthronement, making no distinction whether the matter concerns a bishop elected as pontiff or not[^270]. This has been the occasion of great confusion[^271].

Thus it has come to pass that even modern writers make no distinction between consecration and enthronement, and pontiffs elected from among bishops are said to be consecrated as pope[^272]. It must be said, *first*, that the word consecration, as we have already stated, signifies in general any action, whether consecration as bishop, or even in a broad sense blessing, [or] the sacraments according to the modern manner of speaking. Thus the consecration of a pontiff does not always signify among writers consecration as bishop, but also an act of blessing joined with enthronement, as we shall see later when treating of the rite. Consecration therefore among those writers is the installation of a pontiff either through consecration or through enthronement. This usage is more commonly employed by writers of the imperial party and German annalists, who have had less knowledge of ceremonial matters, as the examples cited demonstrate. *Second*, this matter must be examined and decided according to the more precise language of Bonizo, who says that elected bishops are enthroned, not consecrated—a manner of speaking that is proper to the curia and drawn from the very nature of things. *Third*, this matter holds until Nicholas II, whose decree already presupposes a further development, concerning which [we shall speak] later.

Some difficulty opposes this explanation, arising from the life of Leo IX written by Wibert. For there it is stated: *"And when he saw the unanimous acclamation of all, he returns to the exhortation for the correction of life which he had begun, humbly seeks the prayer and absolution of all. And so, with divine grace favoring him, amid the applause of all he is consecrated, and on the Sunday of the beginning of Lent, on the day before the Ides of February, he is enthroned upon the Apostolic chair"*[^273]. Here there appears to be assigned a twofold act: consecration and an enthronement distinct from it both in itself and in the day of execution. Martens thinks that to resolve this question, Leo had granted to himself a certain extra-sacramental absolution for devotional purposes, which he asserts was called consecration[^274].

We judge that the difficulty can be resolved more easily and conveniently. Wibertus *de facto* intends to describe one solemn ceremony, which he calls both consecration and inthronization. Already at the beginning of his description *Itaque divina*... he shows that he is speaking of something other than the exhortations, prayers, etc. that preceded; even *cunctis applaudentibus* ["with all applauding"] seems to us to allude rather to another solemnity than to a private extrasacramental absolution, even if perhaps given through the cardinals; Wibertus afterwards uses the general term *consecratur* ["he is consecrated"] in opposition to the electoral procedures described earlier, distinguishing election from institution and demonstrating the success of the election by the institution that follows; then it is shown more concretely in what manner this institution into the supreme pontificate was accomplished by solemn inthronization. That he intends the same act is also shown by the particle suggesting greater identity both in place and [manner].

We conclude therefore, arguing from the manner of speaking especially of the 10th century and of Bonizo of the 11th century, that inthronization was the solemnity performed in place of consecration for those elected as pontiffs from among the bishops. In order to demonstrate that this was the same form of institution, it still requires demonstration that inthronization had those juridical effects and relations to the exercise of jurisdictional power that we have recognized consecration to have had.

To prove the juridical nature of inthronization in the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries, we bring forward these principal arguments:

1)\ We can already argue a priori from the fact of the introduction of a new rite. For, given the juridical nature of consecration which has been extensively demonstrated, we may ask why in the election of a bishop to the papacy a new rite was performed, unless it was on account of the juridical significance which was inherent in the consecration. For the sacramental consecration itself was superfluous, since the one elected was already endowed with episcopal power of orders. This argument in itself is indeed not firm beyond all doubt, but when joined with other arguments demonstrating that pontiffs who were already bishops did not exercise the power of jurisdiction before this act of enthronement, it becomes most clear.

3)\ The years of the pontificate are numbered, just as they were numbered from the day the consecration was performed, so also from the day the enthronement of the bishop elected to the papacy was performed[^275]. Of this matter we have a most clear example in the antipope Clement III (Wibert of Ravenna), who on June 25, 1080 was appointed pope by King Henry IV in the synod of Brixen, but was only able to be enthroned in Rome on March 24, 1084[^276]. Nevertheless, he numbers the years of his pontificate not from the year 1080 but from the year 1084[^277], certainly imitating the custom of legitimate pontiffs. This custom shows that only then did the pontiffs consider themselves endowed with the full right of jurisdiction.

4)\ Similar to the aforementioned custom is another, namely, not using a changed name in documents issued before enthronement, but rather the original name, as we know regarding Nicholas II[^278]. Very often the actual change of name or imposition of a new name is joined with the enthronement[^279]. Even the antipope Cadalous, who was never enthroned, followed this custom, calling himself in the year 1071 *electus Apostolicus* [elect Apostolic][^280].

5)\ Another recension of Bonizo, in narrating the enthronement of Leo IX who was already previously a bishop, adds: *Having thus received the fullness of pontifical office*[^281], which shows that only after enthronement was the pontiff considered to be invested with the fullness of jurisdiction.

6)\ Another very clear example is provided by the election of a certain antipope before the pontificate of Alexander II in the year 1061. The Annals of Augsburg narrate concerning him: ...*with the Roman legates making the election, Cadalous, Bishop of Parma... is elected pope and is called Honorius, though he would never possess the papacy*[^282].

7)\ However, the decrees of Nicholas II from the years 1059 and 1060 provide a peremptory argument that is most firm beyond all doubt. Nicholas II established, first, that enthronement is absolutely necessary and must indeed be legitimately performed, so that the elected pontiff may be held to be *pope or apostolic* and not *apostate*[^283]. Second, when extraordinary circumstances prevent enthronement from being completed in Rome, even without enthronement the elected pontiff possesses the authority to govern the Church[^284]. Therefore, up until the time of Nicholas, enthronement was considered absolutely necessary for the pope to obtain authority, and even according to Nicholas's decree, under ordinary circumstances it must be completed before the exercise of proper jurisdiction. This most clearly proves the juridical nature of this act.

Concerning another juridical effect, which is commonly attributed to enthronement, namely, regarding placement in the chair of Peter, we shall treat in its proper chapter. Nevertheless, it must be held, as we conclude this chapter with this proof, that the primary juridical effect of enthronement is none other than what consecration already possesses. Therefore, the juridical rationale in consecration and enthronement is primarily the same; the form has been changed, but the juridical significance has remained. And just as we saw in consecration that the principle of which we spoke at the beginning of our dissertation, enunciated in canon 219 of the Code of Canon Law, underlies it unbroken and makes exceptions possible, so also in enthronement we find, namely, that institution is not the conferral of a right in the matter but rather a condition of exercise, and therefore that in the institution of the pontiff we are dealing with a juridical matter that is entirely singular and proper to itself.

## CHAPTER IX: On the Rite of Enthronement

The materials that authors have presented thus far concerning the ritual of enthronement are few and entirely insufficient. Zoepffel conceives it as a ritual originally connected with consecration and says nothing about the essential element of placement on the throne without this connection[^285]. Martens, arguing from the decree of Nicholas II, believes it was connected with a certain blessing by the cardinals, thereby approaching closer to the truth[^286]. Others confuse it with the introduction into the Lateran Palace[^287]. The cause of these errors is that the records of the eleventh century, from which the cited authors principally and almost exclusively argue, presuppose a ritual already completely established. Therefore, for example, Bonizo always says that pontiffs were enthroned *according to the custom of the Roman Church* or according to established practice[^288]. He therefore does not describe the ritual itself. On the other hand, in the second half of the eleventh century we already find traces of further evolution, as we shall show later, which make the original ritual more difficult to understand. It is therefore necessary to define the question from earlier texts, which good fortune indeed provides in the writings concerning the case of Pope Formosus.

Indeed, in the small work entitled *Infensor et defensor* [*Accuser and Defender*], written by a certain cleric ordained to the presbyterate by Pope Formosus, named Auxilius, there exists in chapter 26 a text offering precious information about the rite of enthronement[^289]. Thus begins the accuser: "When Formosus died so that he might become pope, he commanded that the laying on of hands be conferred upon him, as if he were not a bishop, and through this, he not only did not acquire apostolic dignity, but indeed lost even that which he was as bishop." The defender attempts to resolve the objection from a certain text of Saint Jerome concerning the identity of the office of presbyter and bishop, and concludes: "Thus therefore Formosus in that laying on of hands did not lose what he was as bishop, but received an increase of apostolic dignity, which he did not possess." But the defender himself, sensing the insufficiency of his argumentation, wishes to undermine the foundation of the objection by another path, continuing: "Moreover, we have questioned those who were present when Formosus was enthroned; but they said: 'Without doubt it is utterly false that Formosus received the laying on of hands in that translation; but just as travelers walking on a journey beseech God with outpoured prayers, so we too, entreating the ruler of all things, led him to the apostolic see, and there we enthroned him, offering fitting prayer.'" Nevertheless, the accuser takes up his argument again, even introducing witnesses, in chapter 27[^290]; "There are still surviving suitable witnesses who testify that Formosus was not properly enthroned, but that he caused the laying on of hands to be conferred upon him again in the same order which he already possessed." The defender responded: "If it had been done thus, it would not have been bishops, but brute animals who did it; moreover, the adversaries, since they are of prejudiced mind, are not to be believed"[^291].

Regarding the interpretation of these texts, note the following:

1)\ The accuser's argumentation proceeds from the fact that he does not admit absolute episcopal ordination, but only ordination for a certain see. Concerning the translation of any bishop, therefore, this difficulty is present: How can a translated bishop be the pastor of another see, if he was not ordained for that see? Pope Formosus, according to the calumny of the accuser, in order to avoid this difficulty, had himself ordained again, and indeed as Roman bishop, so that he could be a true and legitimate pontiff. His crime therefore, according to the accuser, consists in this: that he abused the sacrament of ordination for the sake of ambition. This is for general understanding!

2)\ The rite performed in the institution of Pope Formosus must have had external resemblance to the rite of consecration, and indeed to the rite of the laying on of hands in episcopal consecration, because it is designated by his adversaries as a true laying on of hands or consecration as bishop.

3)\ This rite, which is considered by the adversaries of Pope Formosus as consecration as bishop, but which the defender calls enthronement, was not entirely novel, since the adversaries, having admitted the distinction between consecration and enthronement, maintain that it was not performed correctly. They had a determined and certain notion of the rite, which the defender calls enthronement; otherwise they could not have spoken of an enthronement not correctly performed, if they had not possessed a notion of an enthronement correctly performed.

4)\ The rite employed in the enthronement of Formosus was therefore not that rite already known by the name of enthronement, but something else was done short of that already known enthronement, which excited wonder and provided occasion for calumny regarding repeated episcopal consecration.

5)\ What was the nature of this new act among those which are recounted by those who were present, namely *to lead to the Apostolic See, to enthrone, to give fitting blessing*—the words suggest this, by which they compare the fitting prayer with the prayers customary during a journey. This is their meaning: The translation of a bishop from one see to another, or from an episcopal see to the primatial Roman See, is to be compared to a certain journey; those traveling are accustomed to pour forth prayers during a journey. Therefore, in the translation of Formosus as well, it was fitting to pour forth certain prayers, which was done in his installation through enthronement. These prayers, therefore, were newly added, for if they had already been in use, those bishops, whom we must recognize among the said persons present, would not have had the necessity of explaining the use of these prayers through the said not entirely convincing comparison. Moreover, the indeterminate and uncertain expression *giving fitting prayer* suggests the conclusion that this was newly invented and employed, adapted to the solemnity.

6)\ Those prayers had a certain similarity to the imposition of hands in episcopal consecration, since the adversaries insist so strongly that they saw that action performed upon Formosus.

7)\ The new rite was probably established by Formosus himself, since it appears entirely novel and he was the occasion of such great scandal. Concerning the enthronement of Marinus, the first bishop elected to the papacy, we know nothing except the mere fact. Moreover, adversaries say that Formosus prescribed this action.

What then were these prayers? Our conclusions drawn from the text of Auxilius are excellently confirmed from the orders for the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff in the medieval Pontifical. For in almost all copies of the Pontifical containing the order of consecration, after the absolute order of consecration there follows another rubric under the inscription *benedictio papae de episcopo facti* [blessing of a pope made from a bishop], which contains three prayers, often attributed to three bishops—those of Albano, Porto, and Ostia—with the addition that if the Bishop of Ostia is impeded, he should be present through his archpriest[^292]. This blessing of a pope made from a bishop was later also transcribed in the Ceremonial of Cardinal Stefaneschi and is found in all subsequent ceremonial books with an exact description of all the ceremonies employed in this solemnity[^293].

Concerning their antiquity, the manuscript codex of the Vatican Library Barb. lat. 631 (formerly XIV 4) provides us with precious testimony. This parchment codex, written in the eleventh century in the so-called Beneventan script[^294], presents a type of Pontifical from the eleventh century. On folios 132v-133v it displays the text of three prayers under the same rubric *Benedictio pape de episcopo facti* [Blessing of a pope made from a bishop], adding nothing further. Although there exist two manuscripts of the Pontifical of even more ancient origin and destined for Roman use, which contain the order of consecration of the supreme pontiff XL and XXXVI without our prayers[^295], nevertheless we believe those prayers to be very ancient and in their substance to ascend to the time when the election of a bishop to the pontificate was still an exception, namely to the tenth or even ninth century. For it is said in the first prayer: *O God, who do not disdain to be present wherever you are invoked with devout mind, be present, we beseech you, to our invocations, and to this your servant N., whom the common judgment of your people has chosen to reach the apostolic summit, may he have attained the highest point. Through...*[^296].

Certainly, it is not probable that the prayer was composed after the year 1059, since after the decree of Nicholas II, there can scarcely be proper discussion of the *"common judgment of the people,"* indeed, *judgment* was reserved to the cardinal bishops[^297]. On the other hand, we believe that the relationships between the texts of the prayers and the practice of papal elections must be recognized. These elections of bishops, as we have already seen, were considered to have been conducted contrary to the canons. Nevertheless, they were always justified by the fact of a common and universal election by the people. Thus concerning Marinus it is said that he was elected *"by the advocacy and election of the Roman people"*[^298]; concerning Formosus it is reported: *"Your leading phalanxes and satraps, your common people and your schools, from the greatest to the least, elected him, acclaimed him, praised him, and adored him..."*[^299]. In a similar manner concerning John XIII: *"Then by all the Roman people... he is elected"*[^300]. We can recognize the same intention in the cited prayer; the common judgment of the people justifies an election conducted contrary to the canons; moreover, the providence of God is emphasized, by which the elected one has attained the apostolic summit. The prayer, therefore, can be understood from the conditions of the time and of pontiffs elected from among bishops. The third prayer provides a similar argument; for it is said in it: *"...look favorably, we beseech You, upon this Your servant whom, violently lifted from a humble chair, we elevate to the throne* // *of that same prince of the apostles, so that just as he may be increased by the advances of such great dignity, so may he be enriched by the merits of virtues, so that he may worthily bear the burden of ecclesiastical universality with Your assistance, and may receive a reward in return for his merits from You who are the prize and beatitude of Your own. You who live..."*[^301]. For we have seen in the text of Auxilius that the effect of enthronement consists in an increase of apostolic dignity. The same effect is implored in the third prayer: *"so that he may be increased by the advances of such great dignity!"* It also agrees with what those present said, namely, that the prayer was given in the conducting to the apostolic see, for the third prayer can properly be called the prayer of enthronement. We find, therefore, various relationships between the conditions of the ninth century, when the first bishops were elected as pontiffs, and these prayers, so that it should not be deemed improbable, at the very least, that they arose in this same time or not long afterward, and that as to their substance they can already be ascribed to the time of Formosus.

Concerning the rite of inthronization, we can establish thus far that it consists in those acts which the text of Auxilius enumerates, namely: to beseech God in prayer, to lead [the elect] to the apostolic see, to inthronize, to give a fitting prayer. From all these things it is easily gathered that there was described in those words the rite which we call, along with the ceremonial books of later times, the *benediction of the supreme pontiff*[^302], which, joined with coronation, has been in use up to the present day. That [rite] has all the conditions which we derive from the text of Auxilius. It has a certain similarity with consecration: it begins with a procession to the altar, the pope sits on the faldstool between the seat and the altar, the mass begins, three bishops come before him: the *Albanese*, *Portuense*, *Ostian*, and they recite over the elect those now well-known prayers, the pallium is imposed upon him (which we also admit was done in the case of Formosus); but before the imposition of the pallium he already sits on the eminent seat and receives the clergy for the kiss and [kiss of] the foot. This act was the ancient inthronization, following the third prayer, of which we shall speak presently. The pontiff afterwards continues the mass just as in consecration. This benediction, therefore, just like consecration, is performed before the Gloria; three bishops say the prayer over the pontiff—behold the element which gave occasion to adversaries to speak of a repeated imposition of hands—the pallium is handed over just as in consecration, the mass is performed just as in consecration. We have here, therefore, a certain sacramental which was created in the likeness of a sacrament. According to its liturgical-ceremonial form it is called the *benediction of the pope*; according to its juridical significance of institution, *inthronization*.

The similarity between enthronement and consecration extended also to those circumstances by which we have demonstrated that consecration was conducted, namely, to the number and qualification of those ordaining or enthroning, the appropriate time, and the appropriate place; this is not surprising, since enthronement is the heir of consecration with regard to external ceremonial form as well as juridical significance.

That enthronement ought to be performed by the same bishops as consecration is already stated in the enthronement of Formosus, concerning whom the *Invectiva* reports: "...and the bishops together with the sacred Lateran order enthroned him," and still more clearly: "For indeed it is known that he was consecrated by those same bishops by whom his predecessors were consecrated and to whom the right of consecrating belonged"[^303]. The same thing is proven by the text of the council held against Formosus in the year 904[^304]. The same matter is expressed in the bull of Benedict X from the year 1037 for the Bishop of Silva Candida, Peter, establishing that "we entrust to you, who are daily in the service of Saint Peter, the enthronement and installation of the Roman Pontiff in the Apostolic See, and we specially call upon you to bless him along with the others"[^305]. Bonizo frequently said that pontiffs are enthroned by the cardinals according to custom[^306].

The decree of Nicholas II established that it is the office of the cardinal bishops to enthrone the pontiff[^307]. This is clearly evident from the illegitimate enthronement of the antipope Benedict X (1058), who was enthroned by a priest of the Ostian church while the cardinal bishops were protesting, opposing, and pronouncing terrible anathemas[^308]. The duty of the cardinal bishops—indeed of the three already noted—is emphasized in various ways on the occasion of another illegitimate enthronement, namely that of Clement III (1084), an antipope against Gregory VII, who was enthroned by the bishops of Modena, Bologna, and Cervia (according to another tradition, Arezzo)[^309]. Moreover, all the testimonies that we have produced concerning this matter while treating of consecration also prove our case, since writers often speak equally of consecration and enthronement, depending on whether the matter concerns a bishop elected pope or not[^310]. The orders for the papal blessing of one made from a bishop assign three prayers to three bishops, as in consecration[^311]. Nevertheless, the role of Porto and Albano does not seem to have been as indispensable as that of Ostia; for if he [the Bishop of Ostia] was prevented, he was required to send his archpriest. Thus even Lucius III (1181), when he himself was cardinal bishop of Ostia, is invested by his archpriest, as it is said with circumstances changed[^312]. This demonstrates the great reverence that the most ancient privilege of the Bishop of Ostia has always held.

Regarding the day on which the solemnity of enthronement was celebrated, we know that Formosus was enthroned on a Sunday[^313], as were Leo IX[^314], the antipope Benedict X[^315], and the antipope Clement III[^316]. Nevertheless, at that time they did not insist so much on this circumstance as in previous centuries in celebrating the consecration; writers rarely mention that it was performed on a Sunday, not ascribing such great importance to this circumstance. Exceptions were also made: Victor II was enthroned on Maundy Thursday[^317], and the antipope Gregory, during the time of Paschal II, on the Friday of Ember Days[^318].

The place in which the enthronement was celebrated, in the same manner as the consecration, was the city of Rome and specifically the basilica of Saint Peter. Concerning Formosus and the pontiffs of the ninth and tenth centuries, we indeed know nothing about where their enthronement was celebrated, but certainly the adversaries of Formosus would have taken note if he had departed from the ordinary custom of celebrating the ceremony of installation in the church of Saint Peter. That the enthronement must necessarily be performed in Rome is also proven by the decrees of Nicholas II, by which he permits the pontiff the exercise of power before enthronement. For he says that if he cannot be enthroned in Rome, he has the power as if he were already completely enthroned[^319], but not that in that case the enthronement can be performed outside Rome. The enthronement of the pontiffs Damasus II[^320], Leo IX[^321], Victor II[^322], Nicholas II[^323], and the antipope Clement III[^324] was celebrated in the basilica of Saint Peter. This was the ordinary custom. But two notable exceptions are known: Saint Alexander II and Gregory VII, who were both enthroned in the basilica of Saint Peter in Chains[^325]. A similar case exists concerning the antipope Cadalus. For although he was in possession of the basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, they wanted to enthrone him in the said basilica of Saint Peter in Chains[^326].

The enthronements in this basilica that have been explained up to this point derive from the fact that there was some chair of Saint Peter located there, and since the enthronement consisted in the placement upon this chair, it could also have been accomplished in the basilica of Saint Peter in Chains[^327]. But the cases of Alexander II and Gregory VII must not be treated in the same manner as that of Cadalo. The enthronement of Alexander II was prevented from taking place in the ordinary manner in the Vatican basilica, since this was in the possession of the antipope; therefore he was enthroned in the basilica of Saint Peter in Chains. Concerning the said chair venerated there afterwards; but even setting aside the existence of any chair of Saint Peter, we can understand the elections [taking place] in another basilica of Saint Peter, in the case where the principal one was impeded[^328]. The enthronement of Gregory VII must therefore be considered differently, since he was a deacon, and consequently his installation ought to have been accomplished through consecration. The fact that he was enthroned, therefore, demonstrates some change in the discipline of enthronement; moreover, it was done immediately after the election without the celebration of a solemn Mass. We describe these changes in the notion of enthronement in a special chapter. They perhaps wished to accomplish the enthronement of Cadalo in the basilica of Saint Peter in Chains for the reason that in all things it might be made similar to the enthronement of Alexander II, or also because the procession to the palace and Lateran basilica could more easily follow on account of the shorter distance. Nevertheless, the opinion of those who say that the enthronement was performed in the Lateran basilica is destitute of all foundation[^329].

These three circumstances, which we demonstrated in the first part to have been of such great importance in consecration, are also observed in enthronement, as we have now seen. However, they are not considered signs of legitimacy in the same way as in consecration, because the very act of enthronement does not have as its primary end the giving of institution to the new pontiff, while consecration was performed for the conferral of the power of orders. Yet they were not entirely neglected, for at least the office of the Bishop of Ostia was always considered a sign of legitimate enthronement.

The entire discipline of enthronement underwent change around the end of the eleventh century, not without the influence of a new rite which arose at that time, namely coronation. But before we consider those changes, we must speak of the very act of enthronement itself, that is, of the placement on the seat, and indeed of the chair in general and of the relation of enthronement to the chair of Saint Peter.

## CHAPTER X: On the relation of enthronement to the chair of Saint Peter

### § 1 — *On the relation of enthronement to the chair in general*

The term "inthronization" etymologically refers to placement upon a throne, and the entire solemnity of the inthronization of the Supreme Pontiff takes its name from this placement upon the throne. Indeed, it is very frequently stated in the sources already cited that inthronization consists in the elevation of the pontiff to the chair of Saint Peter. From this act, authors commonly determine the juridical effect of inthronization, saying that it consists in the pontiff being shown through inthronization in the chair of Saint Peter as the true successor of Saint Peter in the power of the primacy[^330]. This is certainly not entirely false, but at least it does not exhaust the significance of inthronization, as we saw in Chapter VIII of this part. For primarily, the juridical effect of inthronization consists in the inheritance of consecration. Nevertheless, the relationship of inthronization with the chair of Saint Peter is present and not without significance, whether for the history of the rite itself or for its juridical value. Therefore, here we shall treat of that relationship with the chair, first in general, then with the chair of blessed Peter.

We begin with that conclusion drawn from the text of Auxilius concerning the inthronization of Pope Formosus, that those adversaries of Pope Formosus already possessed a certain and determined notion of inthronization, since they distinguish between inthronization performed rightly and not rightly, which clearly presupposes knowledge of the thing that is called inthronization. This concept of inthronization was certainly drawn from the inthronization that was already in use among bishops. These adversaries desired to find this verified in the inthronization of Formosus.

Concerning the origin of this episcopal enthronement, these points seem worthy of mention. The use of elevated seats by bishops was already known in the Oriental Church in the fourth century. This usage appears to be the reason why in Rome the term *thronus* was employed for seats of this kind[^331]. In pagan times, *thronos* and *solium* signified the power to rule; conversely, *cathedra* signified the power and office of a teacher in an abstract sense already in the third century[^332].

The chairs of certain celebrated bishops were held in veneration by the faithful already in ancient times, such as that of Saint James in Jerusalem[^333]. To sit in the cathedra was already in the Pseudo-Clementine epistles a symbol of apostolic succession[^334].

Episcopal enthronement, therefore, is the act by which those performing the enthronement cause that bishop to sit upon the throne. This act was known in the Church of Gaul already in the sixth century, in the time of Gregory of Tours, and was separated from the episcopal consecration itself, which was performed in the metropolitan church, while the enthronement was completed in the proper cathedral church of the newly consecrated bishop. By this ceremony he took possession of his see, ascending the episcopal throne and receiving the homage and acclamations of the clergy and people[^335].

The juridical significance of episcopal enthronement appears to have developed under the influence of Frankish law, although in that enthronement it was already prefigured in the Pseudo-Clementine epistle. For in all the legal systems of the Germanic peoples, succession in right is completed by the act whereby the successor ascends the elevated seat of his predecessor[^336]. This elevated seat in the time of the Merovingians in Gaul was called the *throne*, the *seat of the kingdom*, the *cathedra*, and was a symbol of the kingdom[^337]. The solemn ascension of this seat took place upon the arrival of the new king and was a visible demonstration of the beginning of the new king's office, but without special public juridical effect. They used the words *to elevate*, *to solemnly elevate*, *to raise up*, *to establish in the kingdom*, *to institute* to signify this act, especially if the king was of minor age[^338]. From the middle of the seventh century this elevation became the juridical form of constitution of a new king by the magnates of the Franks[^339]. Therefore, the influence of this concept of royal enthronement upon the development of episcopal enthronement appears probable, especially since it had developed in Gaul. At Rome, by the end of the ninth century, this enthronement of bishops was well known as an established practice.

This occurs in the *Invectives* against Rome also with regard to bishops. For example: "If therefore among the ancients a bishop migrated from one city to another without any distinction, when utility called for it, it is fitting that this very rule should be joined to this work, so that it may be shown that those who prohibited Proclus from being enthroned lied"[^340]. Similarly, the often-cited Auxilius, in his work *In Defense of Bishop Stephen*: "Stephen... was translated and enthroned not for his own but for others' utility"[^341]; in the same place occurs "he was enthroned in the Parthenopean see"[^342]. In the letter of Rodelgrimus and Guiselgardus it is said "... how by apostolic power and generosity he was there enthroned"[^343]. The aforementioned Auxilius already employs the word in a transferred sense for the nomination of a bishop, saying "Pope Benedict could *enthrone* no one"[^344].

Thus it is now better understood how the adversaries of Pope Formosus were able to insist upon his enthronement. They wanted to see in the institution of Formosus only an enthronement, as for other bishops translated to another see. They found grounds for the calumny of a second episcopal ordination on the occasion of a rite somewhat different from the known episcopal enthronement that had been performed. It is understood, however, why this new rite was called enthronement, because the substance was taken from the known enthronement of a bishop. Therefore, the enthronement of a bishop elected as pontiff was the taking possession of the cathedral church of the supreme pontiff, which was under consideration at this time and on account of the connection with the consecration of the church of Saint Peter in the Vatican.

There is a further consideration that made this change and transition from the rite of consecration to enthronement easier. For there already existed in the rite of consecration a particular rite or special act that was suitable to be connected with the new juridical considerations arising from the notion of enthronement[^345]; indeed, it is stated in the ancient order for the consecration of a pontiff in the *Liber Diurnus* (Roman Ordo XL according to [Michel] Andrieu): *after this the archdeacon places the pallium upon him. Then he ascends to the throne and gives peace to all the priests*...[^346].

This act originally signified nothing other than the ascension to the ordinary seat of a bishop to receive the homage of the clergy and to proceed with the Mass. Under the influence, however, of the notion of enthronement, it acquired a new value and was considered as specially connected with the beginning of the pontificate, with succession to the apostolic office—a signification we have already seen prefigured in the Pseudo-Clementine epistle. We can already recognize the further evolution of this matter in the second order of consecration of the Supreme Pontiff (XXXVI). For there it is said: *The Archdeacon places the pallium upon him, and then he is elevated to the seat between the archdeacon and deacon*[^347]. Here already occurs the word *elevari* (to be elevated), known in the enthronement of Merovingian kings. Later recensions of this order in the collection of Cardinal Deusdedit, Anselmus of Lucca, and in Polycarpus's second form confirm this interpretation[^348]. For in those texts it is said that the pontiff is elevated to the seat *by the archdeacon and the archpresbyter*, by which phrase is better expressed the active element of enthronement on the part of the clergy, just as is shown in the decree of Nicholas II. The ones performing the enthronement are the cardinal bishops, but they employ the ministry of the deacon and presbyter in the actual celebration, with the principal function of the bishops consisting in offering the prayers.

Moreover, there occur words and expressions which the public law of the Merovingians employed for designating the royal seat, [and these same expressions appear] also in the lives of the pontiffs to designate their office and dignity. We do not indeed insist upon the use of the formula *sedes Petri* [seat of Peter] or *sedes apostolica* [apostolic see], which is certainly of the most ancient age; and moreover, this is understood not of a real seat but in a transferred sense of authority[^349]. However, the life of Stephen III speaks of the *pontifical chair* (*sella pontificali*) in the real sense[^350]. Pope Valentinus is said to have been *elevated and placed upon the pontifical throne*[^351]. The antipope Anastasius (855) *sat upon the throne... which he ought not even to have touched with his hands*[^352]. Benedict III was rejected *from the pontifical throne upon which he was seated*[^353], [and] the same pontiff in his election *was placed upon the pontifical throne*[^354]. Similar [expressions] occur in the life of Nicholas I[^355]. By these words, often applied concerning the pontifical throne in the Lateran palace or basilica, we do not wish to prove that enthronement was already then considered as a special act in the consecration, but only [to show] an inundation, so to speak, with the vocabulary of the Franks relating to the beginning of the pontificate.

A more precise allusion is already provided in the life of Nicholas I, in which it is said: *Afterwards, however, having been led by assemblies of the most noble and also by all the people into the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, he was consecrated in the presence of the Emperor, and having been elevated to the apostolic seat, he became pontiff and blessedly celebrated the solemn rites of the Mass over the most sacred body of the Apostle*[^356]. Here the elevation (behold again the word employed by the Franks) is distinguished in some way from the consecration and is considered as a special act. Nevertheless, it should not be thought that some change in the rite had been introduced. The rite was the same. Already before this, certainly a procession to the seat was made in a solemn manner, when the pontiff would continue the Mass there, but now in that procession and ascension to the seat something new is recognized, since that action is surrounded by new ideas, which, coming from the territory of the Franks, have also taken possession of the juridical consciousness of the Romans.

The evolution from consecration to benediction of the Supreme Pontiff was thus accomplished by means of the notion of enthronement, which is conceived as a special part within consecration. Later, when the election of a bishop to the papacy rendered consecration superfluous, it remained, surrounded by new ceremonies, and gave the name "enthronement" to the new solemnity—that is, it was expanded by those prayers composed after the model of consecration. This is the liturgical-ceremonial evolution. Congruent with this was the juridical evolution. Consecration was primarily destined for the conferral of the power of orders; connected with it was the juridical moment of institution, that relationship with the exercise of the power of jurisdiction. That relationship is conceived and expressed in a new way through the act of ascending the Apostolic See as producing the juridical effect of succession; thus the effect of institution is connected in a special way with the act of enthronement, which, having abandoned its form of consecration, survives in the pontifical benediction.

Thus it is also understood that we can speak of inthronization in a twofold manner: concerning the act of ascending the throne separated from other ceremonies, and concerning the entire solemnity. However, since the act of institution has always been a solemn act, we have correctly stated that inthronization was the form of institution and not benediction, inasmuch as it was the liturgical form of inthronization just as previously consecration had been the liturgical form of institution. But in order to understand the origins of inthronization and its subsequent developments, the act separated from its broader ceremonial form must also be considered. Moreover, we have seen that the act of inthronization itself possesses greater independence from that solemnity of inthronization, because in certain circumstances it could also be completed without this solemnity and outside the form of other ceremonies otherwise employed. Thus we have already suggested that the inthronization of Gregory VII should be considered differently, inasmuch as it was performed independently from the solemnity of his consecration immediately after the completed election, as it were, in anticipation.

There are two factors from which this evolution is explained. First, in that action of inthronization separated both from episcopal consecration and from the solemnity of institution, we can recognize the complete victory of this idea of inthronization, since the act itself has progressed to full independence. Second, we must ascribe this progression to some union made between inthronization and another act, namely the first adoration after the completed election, which Cencius Camerarius describes in his Ceremonial thus: "...after the will of all the cardinals has been examined by some of them, the prior of the cardinal deacons clothes him on whom the greater and better part has agreed with a red cope, and imposes a name upon the same elect; and then two of the senior cardinals escort him to the altar; where, prostrate, he adores, with the primicerius along with the choir of cantors and cardinals singing *Te Deum laudamus*. When this is done, he is led by the cardinal bishops to the seat behind the altar, and is placed in it, as is fitting. While the elect sits in it, he receives all the bishops and cardinals and whomever he pleases at his feet, afterwards for the kiss of peace."[^357] 

Cencius describes the series of ceremonies for the case of the election of a non-bishop to the papacy, and clearly in that first adoration we must recognize the inthronization performed by the cardinal bishops joined with adoration and the kiss. Our conclusion is: The inthronization of a non-bishop elected pope at that time, certainly in the first half of the 12th century, is confused with the first adoration otherwise customary when the election is finished; which is more confirmed from the fact that Cencius says not a word about it in his description of the consecration, so that we can see that ascension to the seat has no value for him except as a mere ceremony; for he also presents the act of greater moment in the consecration. Another conclusion is offered: that inthronization after the completed election cannot be the solemn institution of the supreme pontiff. Indeed at that time another act was already destined for this purpose, namely coronation. But so that we may better understand this evolution, certain other matters concerning the relation of inthronization with the chair of Peter specifically must be treated. But it already appears by what path the difficulties arising from that inthronization of Gregory VII and constituting a crux for interpreters might be resolved.

### § II — On the Relationship of Enthronement to the Chair of Saint Peter

In almost all documents that deal with the enthronement of the Supreme Pontiff, this event is narrated in words stating that the pontiffs were enthroned *in the seat of blessed Peter* or *in the apostolic seat* or *in the chair of St. Peter*[^358]. Authors interpret these texts as referring to the seat of Peter or the chair of Saint Peter preserved and venerated in the Vatican Basilica for many centuries[^359]. The enthronement was performed in the Basilica of St. Peter for this reason, so they say, because the chair of Peter was there.

Placement in this seat signified that the pontiff was the legitimate successor of the Prince of the Apostles in the power of the primacy[^360]. The exceptions admitted in the enthronement of Alexander II and Gregory VII are explained by the existence of another chair of Saint Peter in the same basilica ad Vincula during the medieval period. For this reason the pontiff could also be enthroned there[^361]. What then should be said?

1)\ *The apostolic see, the Chair of blessed Peter, to sit upon the apostolic see* occur much earlier than the development of the rite of enthronement. And indeed in a transferred metaphorical sense for the power of the primacy. Thus already at the end of the third century there was present a proper feast day of the *Chair of Peter at Rome* being celebrated[^362]. Saint Cyprian uses the expression ... *with the place of Fabian, that is, with the place of Peter and the rank of the priestly chair*...[^363]. In the schism between Laurentius and Symmachus (498), Theodoric found this judgment of equity, *that whoever had been ordained first, or where the greater part might be recognized, he himself should sit upon the apostolic seat*[^364]. To be elected *to the apostolic see* or to be ordained *to the seat of blessed Peter* occur in the lives of Benedict II[^365], Sergius[^366], Paul I[^367], and very frequently in later times. From all these expressions it does not necessarily follow that they refer to a certain and determinate real seat, but they are better understood almost always in the metaphorical sense concerning the apostolic office of the pontiff. To be elected or ordained to the seat of blessed Peter means to be elected or ordained as Roman Pontiff. Therefore from these texts no argument can be drawn for the existence of a real seat, nor for the related explanation of the enthronement of later times.

2)\ Regarding the existence of some chair of blessed Peter in the basilica ad Vincula, there exists only a single testimony discovered by De Rossi, to which he himself, however, does not attribute such value that it would be absolutely conclusive[^368]. Upon this testimony, nevertheless, Zoepffel and those who follow him insist greatly. Moreover, not even a trace of this chair exists today. Therefore, there can be no discussion of manifest proof regarding the enthronement of Gregory VII and its significance.

3)\ Concerning the authenticity of the Chair of St. Peter preserved and venerated in the Vatican Basilica, there are two opinions[^369]; De Rossi[^370], De Waal[^371], Kraus[^372], Ceratti[^373], along with many others, relying on tradition, assert that the chair is indeed the seat of St. Peter, which Pope Damasus had placed in the baptistery of the Vatican Basilica. Duchesne[^374] and Wilpert[^375] say that all texts speaking of Peter's chair should be understood in a figurative sense, and that no decisive testimony exists for the existence and authenticity of this relic. The sole mention that occurs during the time of Gregory the Great of some seat *where Saint Peter previously sat* is not of great significance, since all writers of the seventh and eighth centuries remain silent, not excepting the Liber Pontificalis. That this relic did not exist during the time of Alexander III is clearly proven by Petrus Mallius, who, dwelling upon all things that might increase veneration for the Vatican Basilica, remains completely silent about the Chair of St. Peter in his description—which certainly would have been a monument of the greatest veneration. The first mention of the chair occurs in the year 1217[^376]. To these arguments advanced by Duchesne, we can add evidence from the enthronement itself. For if the chair had truly been a relic of Saint Peter, it would be remarkable that this circumstance was never and nowhere emphasized, at a time when the act of enthronement was of such great importance. Indeed, we have from the same period a witness who speaks of the Chair of St. Peter in an entirely metaphorical sense, namely St. Peter Damian, who says: *I would not inappropriately compare the privilege of the Roman Church to arms, because while this one church, having been made the head of all Christian religion through the chair of blessed Peter, rules over all churches in the world*[^377]. Moreover, according to tradition, the chair was in the baptistery until the sixth century, later in a lateral chapel then called St. Peter's, afterwards called St. Hadrian's[^378]. The enthronement, however, certainly took place in the principal episcopal seat placed in the apse. The ordines describing the rite say nothing about any seat in a lateral chapel[^379]. Therefore, although an ancient tradition exists, it contributes nothing to our purpose, since certainty does not exist precisely concerning the time period in question; indeed, there are reasons to the contrary.

4)\ Those documents which state that the inthronization was performed in the seat of blessed Peter or the chair of Peter therefore require another explanation. The *apostolic see* has been employed since the fourth century in a transferred sense for the power of primacy obtained through succession to St. Peter. This succession, as already becomes clear from the Pseudo-Clementine epistle cited above, had a relationship with ascending to the seat of one's predecessor. However, this seat of the predecessor was not understood crudely and materially as the actual seat in which he truly sat, but as the seat which, by reason of the episcopal church founded by that predecessor or even dedicated to him, has a special connection with him. Thus the seat of Peter is not only the seat in which he actually sat, but also the seat of the basilica dedicated to him; Peter is the primary bishop of that church, and whoever sits in the episcopal seat of this church dedicated to Peter sits in the seat of Peter, and whoever is inthronized in the episcopal seat of the church of St. Peter is inthronized in the seat or chair of Peter. Therefore, a more sublime concept of succession underlies the act of inthronization; mystical union is attended to more than real and material identity. In later times this concept was no longer understood, and they thought the chair of St. Peter to be an actual relic of that same apostle. This evolution must have occurred during the course of the twelfth century, since at the beginning of the thirteenth century there exists the first notice of the chair of St. Peter as a relic. However, the significance of inthronization had already declined by that time, which further confirms that the inthronization of the Supreme Pontiff was conceived differently in the eleventh century. This more spiritual notion of the chair is also proven by the formula *Lateran chair* at the time of Innocent II, which Arnulf of Séez uses to say that the Roman church does not recognize the pontiff[^380]; and still in the twelfth century by the quasi-typical metaphorical formula which Cardinal Boso uses: *While... Pope Alexander resided in the chair of blessed Peter as vicar of Christ*, by which words he wishes to express only: at the time of Pope Alexander[^381]. From these statements it is permissible to infer that the inthronization of the Supreme Pontiff is not to be determined and evaluated from the fact that it was a placement in the actual seat of Saint Peter. This is not without significance for conceiving the notion of institution in general. For therefore the placement in the seat does not produce a quasi-physical effect, namely the conferral of the power of primacy, but is rather manifestative and demonstrative; it is a medium determined by the circumstances of the times by which succession to the apostolate is expressed. The principal juridical significance remains in the entire solemnity of institution, which is the solemn beginning of the ordinary exercise of the power of primacy. Therefore the opinion proposed by Zoepffel[^382] must also be rejected, which opposes the inthronization and chair of Peter to the ancient patriarchal seat in the Lateran basilica, as if the pontiffs wished to express through placement in the seat of the Lateran basilica that they were patriarchs of the West, but through inthronization in the chair of St. Peter that they were successors of St. Peter in the universal power of primacy. The same consideration underlies both the ancient consecration, which was then the solemn institution of pontiffs, and the inthronization, which therefore is not to be compared with the seizure of possession of the Lateran basilica and palace, but with consecration.

5)\ From this explanation it is now also understood why the basilica of St. Peter in Chains was suitable for the pontiff to be enthroned there. For it was dedicated to St. Peter, it had an episcopal seat for celebrating the divine mysteries; this was the chair of Peter suitable for enthroning the pontiff.

6)\ From this explanation it also becomes clear why Nicholas II established that enthronement was not altogether necessary. For it was more a demonstrative act than an act destined for the conferral of power. The other developments of enthronement as well, which we have already indicated above, are better understood when this relationship to the chair of Saint Peter is properly conceived, concerning which we shall treat in the following chapter.

Two things, therefore, must be held concerning the relationship between enthronement and the chair: first, that the notion of enthronement as an act of placement in the chair was developed under the influence of Frankish law, and that this influence had already been exercised upon the consecration of the pontiff, conceiving the ascension to the seat under this aspect; second, that the relationship with the chair of St. Peter is not to the real, physical seat, but to the episcopal seat of the basilica of St. Peter as a symbol of apostolic succession.

## CHAPTER XI: On the Further Evolution of Enthronement up to the Fourteenth Century

We have already seen that the enthronement of Gregory VII was carried out immediately after his election, contrary to custom. What was new in this enthronement was, first, that the elect was enthroned while still a deacon, whereas the established form of installation for him would have been consecration, within which the solemn ascension to the chair was understood as the enthronement; second, that he was enthroned immediately after the election without the celebration of a solemn Mass.

The ancient custom was still observed in the installation of Pope Stephen X (1057-1058), of which two descriptions survive[^383], but neither makes mention of an enthronement. The sequence of ceremonies was completed just as in the elections of preceding centuries. After the election there immediately followed the introduction into the Lateran palace; on the following Sunday he was consecrated as bishop[^384].

Let us now compare with this installation of Stephen that of Gregory VII. Archdeacon Hildebrand was present at the burial of his predecessor Alexander II; a tumult of the people arose acclaiming Hildebrand as pope; he was seized and carried to the chair of blessed Peter in the same basilica ad Vincula and enthroned; all these things were done on one day, April 22nd[^385]. After one month he was ordained priest—on May 22nd—and on June 30th he was consecrated bishop[^386]. While still a deacon he was already exercising jurisdiction[^387]. Both Stephen and Gregory VII were not bishops; one was enthroned, the other was not. How can these changes be explained?

Among the aforementioned papal elections of Stephen X and Gregory VII, there occurred an event of the greatest importance both for the election and for the institution of the Supreme Pontiff, namely the decree of Nicholas II concerning papal election, arising from the conditions of the election of the antipope Benedict X and the promotion of Nicholas himself. We already know that Nicholas established in this decree and in the supplement of the year 1060 that enthronement should ordinarily be performed at Rome, yet that it is not absolutely necessary and that when adverse circumstances prevent it, it may be omitted, with authority being granted to the pontiff in such a case to govern the Church *as if he were already enthroned*.

Therefore, the custom of enthroning pontiffs should ordinarily be observed. Yet Pope Nicholas neither wishes nor is able to ascribe such value to this custom as if the legitimate constitution of the pontiff depended upon it, since he himself was constituted and enthroned neither in the ordinary manner, and this very decree was issued also for this purpose, that through it the election of Nicholas II might be justified[^388].

The question therefore of the very notion of the institution of pontiffs is called into examination by Nicholas and is resolved from the fundamental principle concerning the divine conferral of primatial power, whose exercise cannot be so restricted by human law as if it were fully bound to some other act differing from election and following upon it, and this is strengthened by the example of Pope Gregory. The historical event of the promotion of Nicholas II was the occasion which brought about a clearer understanding of the juridical relationship of institution to the exercise of primatial power. This was also a natural evolution. For the entire discipline of institution is intimately connected in its origin with the law prohibiting the election of a bishop as pontiff. The repeated election of bishops as pontiffs thus in some way removed the foundation and broke the presuppositions of the discipline of institution, and therefore the juridical force was also broken. The moment when that evolution appeared was that election of Nicholas and his decree concerning papal election, establishing that enthronement — at least in certain cases — is not necessary in order that a pontiff be legitimately elected and have the power of governing the Church.

Another consequence also follows from that described evolution. For with the juridical force of enthronement being weakened, when it is performed in such cases, it takes on more the character of a mere ceremony, since it is no longer so closely connected with the beginning of the exercise of power. As a ceremony, it acquires greater independence from the very solemnity of institution, so that it can be performed separately from the solemnity of consecration or blessing, as we have seen in the case of Gregory VII. The period before the decree of Nicholas II had therefore developed the maximum juridical force of enthronement; from that decree begins its diminution, and the exercise of primatial power is freed more from the determinations of human law. This diminished estimation of enthronement also leads to the result that less attention is paid to it, from which changes occur more easily. Thus a certain uncertainty in the discipline of enthronement can be recognized around the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth century. Another element is added, which begins to exercise influence on the institution of the Supreme Pontiff, further diminishing the value of enthronement and depriving both consecration and enthronement of their juridical effects — coronation.

Witnesses to this matter thus explained are the enthronements known to us from historical documents. We find ordinary enthronement observed in the institution of antipope Clement III (1084)[^389]; Victor III (1087) is consecrated as bishop in the ordinary manner with mention made of his placement in the apostolic see at St. Peter's[^390]. In a completely extraordinary manner, Urban II (1088) is enthroned at Terracina, which according to the decree of Nicholas II would not have been necessary: this is explained by the fact that there existed there a church and altar of Saint Peter, at which the solemnity was performed[^391]. Mention of enthronement is often made in that case in which the election was conducted at St. Peter's, and then the first adoration is considered as enthronement, or the pontiff is blessed at St. Peter's, if he was a bishop, then this blessing according to the original concept is called enthronement or is expressed in equivalent words. We have here therefore another further development, that they speak of enthronement which, in the case of the election of a bishop as pope in the basilica of St. Peter's, happens immediately after the election, although a solemn installation is afterwards performed again in the same church. This last form was observed in the case of Adrian IV (1154)[^392]. Examples of episcopal consecration with mention made of enthronement included in the consecration are the consecration of Gelasius II (1118)[^393], of antipope Anacletus II (1130)[^394], of Innocent III (1198)[^395], of Gregory X (1272)[^396]. The solemn installation of bishops elected as pontiffs at St. Peter's is called enthronement or is expressed in similar words in the case of Honorius II (1124)[^397] and Nicholas IV (1288)[^398]. We have enthronement immediately succeeding the election with subsequent consecration in the case of elections carried out at St. Peter's, thus for antipope Victor IV (1159)[^399]; the same would have been the series of ceremonies for the legitimate pope Alexander III, if he could have been enthroned according to the established order; but before enthronement he was forced by intervening armed violence to leave the basilica[^400].

We have seen an extraordinary case verified in the election of Calixtus II (1119), who was crowned at Vienne and afterwards, coming to Rome, was enthroned in the basilica of Saint Peter[^401]. There are also ordinary consecrations or benedictions of pontiffs in which no word of enthronement appears. Thus in the case of Gregory IX (1227)[^402] and Innocent V (1276)[^403]. Nothing is said, *a fortiori*, about any enthronement if the pontiffs were installed outside the City, as very frequently happened in the thirteenth century[^404]. Nevertheless, one act is always performed: either consecration, if the elected person is not a bishop, or benediction, if he is a bishop—both of which can be joined with enthronement or subsequent coronation. With the greater elaboration of coronation, the importance of enthronement decreases. This already appears from the words employed in historical accounts, which present a certain uncertainty and variety[^405]. Thus the significance of installation passes to the benediction of the pontiff joined with coronation.

In this evolution, the change in the juridical value of enthronement—accomplished through anticipation and conjunction with the first adoration following the election—is also of great importance. For the concept of installation always appears connected with the celebration of a solemn Mass and the solemn blessing or consecration of the pontiff. With this connection dissolved, enthronement is no longer to be considered an act of installation but rather a ceremony like the others which immediately follow the election. Thus we find it often commemorated de facto simultaneously with the investiture with the mantle of the elected pontiff. The series of acts in this case is as follows: after the election, the senior of the cardinal deacons places upon the newly elected the red papal mantle, the special insignia of the pontiff[^406], the new name of the elect is announced, he is led to the *seat behind the altar* (the episcopal seat of the church), is placed in it, and receives the adoration of the clergy and people. Thus Cencius describes the rite, and the Ceremonial of Gregory X describes it with slight amplification[^407].

The juridical significance of this form of enthronement is now confused with that of the investiture with the mantle; the ancient ceremonial and juridical simplicity is disturbed by new elements, and the force of individual ceremonies is discerned with difficulty. The entire evolution tends toward a greater elaboration of ceremonies to the detriment of the original juridical sense, which is recognized not only in those papal ceremonies but also elsewhere as a sign of further and more recent evolution[^408].

In historical documents, those symbols are now more strongly emphasized than the actual solemn institution, investiture with the mantle, and enthronement itself, if these were performed at St. Peter's, as signs of a legitimate pontiff, especially in the schismatic elections of 1130 and 1159[^409]. We can conceive the juridical explanation of this evolution as follows. The solemn institution at St. Peter's was diminished through frequent exceptions, aided by the decree of Nicholas II. The force of consecration had already been exhausted through enthronement, and moreover there was no rule or exception regarding the election of bishops or non-bishops. Thus consecration became a quasi-supplement necessary in certain cases. The blessing of the pontiff was a liturgical form from the end of the eleventh century onward, joined with coronation, concerning which more will follow in the third part. All these factors brought it about that enthronement lost its value similar to consecration, or transformed its force into another form together with investiture with the mantle. Therefore other elements—symbols, especially the mantle and crown—acquired greater force. Solemn institution indeed has certain external effects, as before; however, between the act of election, conceived as a quasi-conferral of right to the thing (*ius ad rem*), and institution (conferral of right in the thing (*ius in re*) according to the explanation given in the introduction) there intervenes another juridical element, which we can call a more express concept of the right to the thing conferred through election, or even the beginning of the conferral of right in the thing. A pontiff who has been invested with the mantle and simultaneously enthroned with this investiture is indeed not solemnly instituted, but has greater right than one who is merely elected. That investiture with the mantle is not, however, the complete heir to the juridical effects of institution, as Grauert said, is clearly evident from the examples of the antipope Honorius II (Cadalus) and Clement III (Wibert), who already possessed the papal mantle, yet concerning Cadalus it was said that he would *never possess the papacy*, because he was not solemnly instituted, and Clement III counted the years of his pontificate from his solemn institution, performed four years after he had received the papal insignia[^410].

Nor is the year of the pontificate counted from the day of enthronement, if this should take place immediately after the election, but from the day of the solemn blessing or consecration, if the elect was not a bishop. It should be added that the coronation is joined with this solemnity.

We have, therefore, at that time a more extensive juridical development in the sense that in place of two acts—election and institution (whether by consecration or by enthronement)—three are present: election, investiture (which we may well call "immantation")[^411], and institution. Investiture partakes of election, because it does not yet confer the full exercise of jurisdiction, and of institution, because it effects something that surpasses the effect of election and occupies that element of the ancient institution which was the sign of the pontiff's legitimacy. On the other hand, the juridical force itself is more and more weakened, the determination of individual acts and their effects is not so strictly discerned, and institution itself has lesser value, while the principle declaring that the pontiff obtains all power, including its exercise, upon accepting election is more clearly acknowledged and put into practice. Let us recall the decree of Clement VI of the year 1351 cited in the introduction! The juridical force of institution appears to be entirely removed; the act itself becomes mere solemn ceremony. Thus it was not necessary to commemorate the Avignon pontiffs for the rite of enthronement to vanish, as has often been said—this had already been accomplished by the evolution itself. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical usage, indeed official ceremonial usage, afterward employs the word *enthronement* and *to enthrone*[^412]; even today the pontiff ascends in solemn manner to his seat, the chair of blessed Peter, but it is no longer enthronement in that sense which the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries had formed.

Concerning the omission of enthronement due to the exile of pontiffs, cf. WETZER-WELTE, *Kirchenlexikon* II 2nd ed. Freiburg 1887, 2058; *Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche* V, Freiburg 1933, 440; *The Catholic Encyclopedia* III, 1908, 553.

# THIRD PART: ON THE CORONATION OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

## CHAPTER XII: Historical Survey of the Papal Crown

We do not wish in this part to expound all questions connected with the coronation of the Supreme Pontiff, but only for our purpose, insofar as it pertains to the form of institution. Two questions must be distinguished above all: the history of the crown and the history of coronation as an act of institution of the Supreme Pontiff. From the first question we shall here set forth the necessary presuppositions for understanding the history of coronation[^413].

The first special mention of a head covering of the Supreme Pontiff is made in the life of Pope Constantine (708-715), in which it is said in the description of that same pope's journey to the Emperor of Constantinople, that he used particular imperial insignia upon entering the emperor's city, and especially on his head *with a camelaucum, as he is accustomed to proceed at Rome*[^414]. Therefore, at the beginning of the eighth century the Supreme Pontiff had a special head covering proper to himself and used it in processions. Just as the name of this covering, so also its origin appears to be from the East; it was probably introduced by the oriental pontiffs of this period[^415]. For the rest, we know nothing about the papal camelaucum.

This first notice is succeeded by another similar one in the words used and at the very end of the same eighth century, namely in the famous Donation of Constantine (today most commonly called the Constitutum Constantini). It is related that Emperor Constantine the Great, in gratitude for the health he received through Pope Saint Sylvester, gave him as a gift his Lateran palace, all the lands of the West, and the use of imperial decoration together for his clerics[^416].

For the pontiff himself, the emperor designated his own crown of purest gold, so that he might wear it. The Constitutum speaks of this crown in two places. In the first place, in the series of all the imperial ornaments which the pontiff may use, it states: "...then the diadem, namely the crown of our head, and likewise the phrygium, as well as the superhumerale, namely the stole, which is accustomed to encircle the imperial neck, and indeed also the purple cloak and the scarlet tunic and all the imperial vestments..."[^417]. In the second place, perhaps interpolated at a somewhat later time, Emperor Constantine decrees that "the same venerable father of ours, Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, or all his successor pontiffs, ought to use the diadem, namely the crown, which we have granted to him from our head, made of purest gold and precious gems, and to bear it upon their head for the praise of God and for the honor of blessed Peter; but that most holy pope himself, over the crown of the clerical state which he wears for the glory of blessed Peter, was not at all willing to use that crown of gold, but we placed with our own hands upon his most sacred head the phrygium, brilliant with white splendor and designating the glorious resurrection of the Lord... establishing that all his successor pontiffs should use that same phrygium individually in processions"[^418]. The donation of the crown is proper to the Constitutum; the legend of Sylvester only narrates that the emperor, having removed the diadem from his head, prostrated himself at the confession of blessed Peter[^419].

For our purpose, these conclusions are drawn (it is superfluous to say that nothing follows from the false Constitutum of Constantine and Sylvester for the time being): at the time when the Constitutum originated, at the end of the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th, the pontiffs used some special head covering called a *frigium*, and indeed in processions. The significance of this ornament has something in common with imperial dignity. Nevertheless, it is not a crown of gold. The purpose of using it in processions proves that it is the same ornament as the *camelaucum* of Pope Constantine. These conclusions are proven from the intention of the forger. For if he had wished to invent some ornament for the pontiff, he certainly would have given him a crown itself. However, he explains the more modest head covering through the modesty of Saint Sylvester. Therefore, it was certainly in use[^420].

Another document of the 9th century more greatly confirms and shapes the matter. The order of consecration of the supreme pontiff, of which we have already spoken quite often, according to Mabillon [dating to the] 9th [century] [and] Andrieu XXXVI, has in the second part an account of the imposition of the *regnum* upon the head of the pontiff, after the consecration while riding to the palace. With the consecration completed, the pontiff exits from the basilica of blessed Peter, and is acclaimed thus: *"Lord Pope Leo, whom Saint Peter has chosen, may he sit in his seat for many years." When this has been said three times, the prior of the stable approaches and places upon his head the regnum, which is made of white vestment in the likeness of a helmet. And then at last he mounts upon the horse*...[^421]. There are those who have said that the coronation of the pontiff described here is an addition from a later time, the 11th century, and that Pope Leo cited here is Leo IX[^422].

But against this is the fact that a very ancient manuscript already contains the name of Pope Leo and the words in the same manner as Mabillon's edition (which is also based on a 10th-century codex, namely St. Gall 614, from the end of the 9th century[^423]). Moreover, the description that the ordo presents of this ornament is similar to the description given in the Donation of Constantine, the manner of using it in processions agrees, and it does not differ from Constantine's camelaucum, which also probably had the form of a helmet[^424]. However, the regnum of our ordo is not a crown made of metal but of white garment, just as in the Donation. Nevertheless, it also has that relationship, and indeed a more express one, with a certain imperial dignity of the Supreme Pontiff, which the very name *regnum* suggests. We consider it probable that the evolution from the Phrygian cap to the regnum took place in the 9th century under the influence of a greater esteem for the temporal dignity of the pontiff, which the pontiffs of that time enjoyed, such as Nicholas I and John VIII[^425], or even under the influence of those tendencies which are comprehended under the formula 'renewal of the empire,' and which were believed to be verified on the one hand by the emperor and on the other by the pontiff[^426]. Therefore it is possible that the Pope Leo mentioned was Leo IV (847-855) and not Leo III as Mabillon[^427] and Zoepffel believed[^428]. Furthermore, an exact determination does not help much, since the use of this ornament was already established at the beginning of the 8th century by Pope Constantine, which is called *camelaucum*, *frigium*, or *regnum*. However, the term *regnum* expresses greater value and greater symbolic force.

The tenth century and the first part of the eleventh century are entirely silent concerning the papal crown. There exist, however, certain coins of Sergius III showing the image of the apostle St. Peter with a head covering, which appears to represent the *regnum* of this period[^429].

The second part of the 11th century finally provides new information, even though the source that supplies it is not better. For Benzo, bishop of Alba and most hostile to Archdeacon Hildebrand (later Gregory VII), narrates thus concerning Nicholas II and Hildebrand: *Therefore, Prandellus, corrupting the Romans with much money and many perjuries, convenes a synod where he crowned his idol with a royal crown. The bishops, seeing this, became as if dead. Moreover, it was read on the lower circle of the same diadem thus: "Crown of the kingdom from the hand of God." But on the other [circle] thus: "Diadem of empire from the hand of Peter"... And such a one is exalted over the Christian people, and what is horrible not only to hear but even to see, he is crowned as if a king in synod*[^430]. There are those who say this narrative should be rejected as a fable and merits no credence[^431]. But serious reasons are present that Benzo narrated the truth at least as to substance. For he himself was present at the synod of 1059, and he narrates the same thing about Alexander II (*And such a one is exalted over the Christian people, and what is horrible not only to hear but even to see, he is crowned as if a king in synod*)[^432]. Again concerning Gregory VII: *The business is accomplished: he who is called Legion is elevated, a demon is crowned, the cowled one goes to the Capitol mitred*[^433]. It is added that at that time narratives about the use of the crown by pontiffs also begin elsewhere. Thus concerning Gregory VII we know that he wore the *regnum* at the solemnity of the Nativity of our Lord when returning to the palace after Mass was completed in the basilica of Saint Mary Major[^434]. Ordinary reports about the use of the regnum become frequent toward the end of the 11th century, as we shall explain later. Not without merit, therefore, it is admitted that by Hildebrand's authority a *crown* was added to the *regnum* or *phrygium* of the pontiff, which medieval images always display[^435]. That it has the significance of a royal or imperial crown is made clear from the fact that at that time the Donation of Constantine was much employed, and from it the donation of all imperial insignia to the supreme pontiff by the emperor was demonstrated[^436]. Thus in the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII himself[^437], in the canonical collections of Cardinal Deusdedit[^438], of Anselm of Lucca[^439], of Saint Ivo of Chartres[^440]. The supreme pontiff in the Middle Ages made much use of the regnum, and indeed according to ancient tradition in processions, namely in riding from the palace to the station churches on greater feast days, a list of which is provided by Benedict the Canon[^441] and Cencius the Chamberlain. These days were called feasts of the crown[^442]. At this time there occurred the evolution of coronation, which we shall demonstrate in a special chapter, namely of coronation as a form of institution.

The evolution of the crown itself from a kingdom to a triple crown, which the Supreme Pontiff wears today, has been much discussed up to this point[^443]. It was believed that Boniface introduced the second crown, and pontiffs a little later the third. However, this does not seem to be correct. The most probable opinion is that the kingdom with a single crown was immediately succeeded by the kingdom with three crowns, and indeed these were introduced by Boniface VIII around the year 1300. The forms of the kingdom with a double crown that exist, however, are explained as forms used in a few cases after Boniface VIII[^444]. This opinion explains the matter well, being in good agreement both with historical documents, which say nothing about a tiara with a double crown, and with works of art, as an act designating the beginning of the pontificate in a special way. Thus it also happened,

## CHAPTER XIII: *Concerning the Institution of the Supreme Pontiff through Coronation*

The use of the papal crown is not the same as coronation as a form of installation. For the pontiff employed the crown as another ornament in solemn ceremonies; even after his consecration the crown was placed upon him, as we have seen; nevertheless this imposition did not have juridical effects, nor was it considered as such, since so few records of the crown exist in the 9th, 10th, and first part of the 11th centuries. More abundant records appear with the begun evolution of the crown toward a proper act of coronation, with the developed symbolism of the crown. The crown thus becomes the principal and primary symbol of pontifical dignity; it is therefore fitting that the first imposition of this symbol at the beginning of the pontificate should also become the principal act of installation of the Supreme Pontiff. The solemn inauguration of a new emperor was also accomplished through coronation, not without influence on the coronation of the pontiff, especially since the very blessing of the emperor was performed according to the likeness of the blessing of the pontiff. Thus probably, conversely, the coronation of the emperor had an influence on the coronation of the pontiff, even if not directly, nevertheless in that it provided the occasion for greater attention to be given to the coronation of the pontiff.

When precisely the coronation of the pontiff should be considered a form of installation does not admit of exact determination. We have seen that the evolution of enthronement in the second half of the 11th century was disturbed in various ways and its authority diminished. We have said that this also occurred under the influence of coronation.

The transition from one form to another occurs in a similar manner as from consecration to enthronement. For we have a certain enduring element, the blessing of the pontiff, which, when the rite of enthronement became obsolete, was performed as its proper solemnity. At the end of this blessing, as already described in the *Ordo* of the ninth century, a crown was placed upon the pontiff and he rode in solemn manner with the crown to the Lateran palace. This imposition of the crown, performed after the solemnity, gained greater attention in the eleventh century with the greater esteem that was attributed to the crown in general during the time of Gregory VII, when it was conceived as the principal symbol of pontifical power and dignity. Thus also the act of imposition could be considered as the principal act following the election. It thus came about that gradually there were attributed to this act the effects that previously belonged to consecration and enthronement, so that coronation became the act of installation. Just as previously in the evolution of enthronement (initially joined with consecration) the rite remained unchanged, yet enjoyed a new estimation under the influence of new juridical ideas, so also in the transition from enthronement or blessing of the pontiff to coronation, the rite itself was not changed, yet it acquired another estimation, was interpreted in another way, and was understood under another juridical aspect. Thus this transition, just as previously in enthronement, happened gradually, and the boundaries by which they are distinguished are difficult to determine. Nevertheless, there is present a terminus at which the new evolution clearly appears, namely: just as in enthronement without episcopal consecration, so in coronation without enthronement, which occurred if the pontiff was not enthroned outside the City. His blessing is connected with coronation; this solemn action has the character of installation with the entire inheritance of consecration and enthronement, insofar as it still remained, regarding juridical effects and external ceremonial form. Thus the evolution is explained according to the ceremonial and juridical aspect. It must be considered, however, that the significance of installation, especially in the case performed outside the City, was diminished by the decree of Nicholas II; it was nevertheless present, and much time was still necessary for the principle from which the decree of the years 1059 and 1060 had flowed to be fully recognized in the discipline of installation, namely that the pontiff enjoys full power immediately after accepting election.

But let us return once again to history and its documents. Concerning Nicholas II, Alexander II, and Gregory VII, we know at least with great probability that they were crowned at the beginning of their pontificates. Concerning Victor III, nothing has been handed down to us. In the case of Urban II, his enthronement performed outside the City is still more noteworthy, but once the City was recovered, he celebrated a solemn Mass in the basilica of St. Peter and returned crowned to the palace[^445]. Paschal II (1099) joined consecration with coronation, making no mention of enthronement[^446]. Gelasius II (1118) was also consecrated and returned crowned to the palace[^447]. But coronation already has its own proper institutional character in the case of Calixtus II (1119). He was elected in the monastery of Cluny, far from the City. He was Archbishop of Vienne. However, doubt arose whether the election would be considered ratified by the Romans. Therefore the elected pontiff resisted in every way... *For this reason he scarcely allowed himself to be clothed with the red cape until messengers returning from Rome... confirmed that election itself canonically and by law. Therefore, when this had been accomplished and most excellently strengthened by the subscriptions of all, then the pope, solemnly consecrated by Lambert, Bishop of Ostia, and very many others in the name of God, began the journey to Rome together with all his retinue*[^448]. We find all the elements of institution verified here. A clear distinction is made between the act of election and the act of institution still necessary; the act of institution is placed finally after doubt about the legitimate election has been removed. He is indeed said to have been consecrated, but this consecration was nothing other than a blessing joined with coronation, as Cono, Bishop of Praeneste and eyewitness, reports to us, saying *Thence we came to Vienne, where on Quinquagesima Sunday the lord pope was crowned*[^449]. Having entered Rome, he is received as pontiff with all honors and still performs the rite of enthronement, but this is only a complement; the act of institution was that consecration performed at Vienne. It also had all the other necessary elements: it was performed by the Bishop of Ostia and other bishops, on a Sunday. The rite is not new; it is the blessing of the pope arising from enthronement with those prayers, with the imposition of the pallium and all other ceremonies which are customarily performed in enthronement.

The pontiff himself testifies that the coronation was a principal act and special signification for later times, as is known from the sermons of Innocent III on the day of consecration; even here we already find that allusion, namely that the crown signifies the royal *priesthood* of the Roman Church[^450].

Therefore, in the first part of the twelfth century, coronation as an act of institution was perfectly developed, joined indeed either with consecration or with benediction. Hence it is understood that the coronation is completed by the cardinal bishops just as the benediction is; the act itself was indeed performed at first by the prior of the stable (order XXXVI), but from the time of the archdeacon Hildebrand it was performed by the archdeacon, as is also today the privilege of the prior of the cardinal deacons[^451]. The day of coronation, like that of consecration, is Sunday; the place varies greatly, especially in the thirteenth century. The external circumstances of the coronation are not attended to as much as in the first millennium regarding consecration, except for the privilege of the Bishop of Ostia, concerning whose further evolution we have already treated when discussing consecration. The juridical effects in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are the same as those of enthronement; the years of the pontificate are numbered from the coronation, and pontiffs use bulls *dimidiae* if they are necessary before the act of coronation. But just as enthronement was not so strictly connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, so also was coronation. The end of the entire discipline of institution is assigned by the already-cited decree of Clement VI of the year 1351. What remains until the present day are the traces and shadow of the ancient discipline.

Nevertheless, the mystical symbolism of the pontifical tiara develops to the greatest extent. Innocent III announces on the day of his consecration the likeness of the Supreme Pontiff to the priest and king Melchizedek and says concerning the crown: *Therefore the Roman Pontiff uses a crown as a sign of empire, and uses a miter as a sign of his priesthood*[^452]. The imperial power and the supreme temporal dominion of the Roman Church influence together with the struggle between pontiffs and emperors the development of the symbolism of the pontifical crown and all imperial symbols. This evolution reaches its culmination in Pope Boniface VIII. But since all these matters are connected in another way by law with those questions concerning the temporal dominion of the Church in the Middle Ages, they are better presented in a special study, which we hope to produce at some time.

Therefore, to examine the evolution of the notion of the institution of the Supreme Pontiff, it suffices to consider it up to the end of the thirteenth century. And already in the final decades of the thirteenth century, few traces of the ancient rigor remained. What were formerly matters of law became ceremonies, and those very customs that arose from legal disposition, such as the numbering of the years of the pontificate and the use of lead bulls, became mere customs whose ancient juridical origin fell into oblivion. Thus *Clement VI* in the cited constitution says not a word about the origin or about any apparent title which the prescribed sentence could have invoked in his favor, but decides the matter according to new law.

We have already stated that this evolution is natural, arising from the changed conditions of papal elections. No juridical difference any longer exists as to whether a bishop or non-bishop is elected. The very concept of institution lacks that internal foundation situated in the connection between the power of jurisdiction and of orders. Even the second element of institution, situated in the visibility of the solemn external act as a sign of the legitimacy of the election, has been changed. The developed law of the thirteenth century relied more on reason than on visible signs. And those signs which are employed are understood *more* according to their mystical signification. Thus the way *was opened* for the election of the pontiff and the exercise of primatial power to be fully freed from those constraints to which it had been subject in earlier centuries. Therefore, what canon 219 of the Code of Canon Law establishes—with which we began our work—these are the principles which, stripped of all historical garb, apply to the conferral and exercise of the primatial power of the pontiff. Since our present study has attempted to investigate how this principle has been recognized throughout the course of centuries and to what determinations of human law it has been subject, it can be considered as a historical commentary on the cited canon.

## CHAPTER XIV: *Recapitulation of the Principal Conclusions*

In the consecration, enthronement, and coronation of the Supreme Pontiff, our primary consideration has been juridical, or rather historico-juridical. To this end, we have comprehended those three acts under a common term still little used, namely that of "institution," by which we have understood the solemn ceremonial acts having a relationship with the exercise of jurisdictional power. There is a twofold foundation for forming this concept: external, situated in that law which prohibited the translation of bishops and consequently the election of a bishop to the papacy; and internal, situated in the connection between the two powers—of orders and of jurisdiction. For this reason, the consecration of the pontiff as bishop obtained, beyond its principal function (namely, the conferral of the power of orders), also a relationship to the exercise of jurisdictional power, or rather it became a form of institution.

Further evolution begins with the influence that Frankish law exercised upon ecclesiastical laws. In Frankish law, succession to royal dignity was conceived through the solemn ascension of the royal throne; in imitation of this practice, the beginning of a new pontificate was also conceived through ascension of the pontifical chair, which had already been customary previously in episcopal consecration. Just as consecration generally was the subject of the notion of institution, or the element in which the juridical moment resided, so now a particular act or ceremony—the ascension of the chair—enjoys this function. When circumstances changed through the election of bishops to the pontificate, this particular rite of enthronement remains endowed with juridical significance, but is transformed into another liturgical form, namely the benediction of the pontiff. This benediction, joined with the solemn ascension of the pontifical seat in the church of Saint Peter, is generally called enthronement, which therefore is the form of institution for pontiffs elected from among bishops. Institution up to this time possesses a true and proper juridical moment, because it is the true terminus for exercising the power of supreme jurisdiction. But since, through the legitimate election of bishops to the pontificate, the foundation and internal rationale of the concept of institution do not remain as firm as previously in consecration, evolution reaches the point where the juridical significance of enthronement is less esteemed and enthronement itself is declared superfluous in extraordinary cases by the decree of Nicholas II (1059).

In the case of an ordinary election, however, the inthronization was also performed as an institution. But already in the eleventh century, the beginnings of a new form of institution of pontiffs are established. With the consecration and inthronization there was already joined some other particular rite at the end of the solemnity, *namely* the imposition of the crown upon the head of the pontiff as he rode to the Lateran Palace. Historical evolution abandoned the ancient idea, which conceived the beginning of a new pontificate with the ascension to the pontifical seat, and recognized that [beginning] more in the imposition of the crown, which became the principal symbol of primatial power. And just as in the consecration the particular rite of ascending the seat was the principal subject of the juridical moment, so now the rite of imposing the crown at the end of the pontiff's consecration or benediction becomes the subject of the juridical moment, and the same solemnity, which was formerly called inthronization, is called coronation, which therefore became a new form of institution. However, the juridical moment, already somewhat weakened by the decree of Nicholas II, decreases more and more, and in the year 1351 it is entirely removed by the constitution of Clement VI. The institution of the pontiff in a juridical sense no longer exists. The external forms and customs still performed are mere ceremonies or symbols understood mystically. The pontiff's supreme power of jurisdiction, obtained upon acceptance of the election, is restricted by no determination in its exercise. These are the principal conclusions according to the juridical aspect, which is the primary focus of our study.

We can also add other observations of some significance. The consideration of the institution of the pontiff has brought forth for us not only juridical conclusions, but simultaneously also historical-dogmatic ones. For since the principle concerning the conferral of the supreme power of the pontiff is also a dogma of faith, the clear recognition gradually made over the course of centuries is illustrated by our considerations. Even regarding the history of liturgy and ceremonies, the investigation of the institution of the pontiff has brought us certain things worthy of mention; especially those things which we have said concerning the origin of enthronement explain how and by what means the sacramental blessing of the pope arose from the sacrament of episcopal ordination.

There shines forth from the entire consideration a splendid continuity both liturgical-ceremonial and juridical, a singular relationship of divine law in the church to human law, an excellent aptitude for expressing juridical ideas over the course of time and under the influence of considerations common to peoples, there shines forth also the special dignity always adjudicated to the supreme pontiff, and his authority above all other bishops of the church, since his introduction into office is honored with such attention and such special customs.

# INDEX

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE  
                                                                3

FIRST PART — On Consecration as the Form of Institution up to the 10th Century

Chapter I — Consecration was the true form of institution . . . . 8
Chapter II — On the Orders determining the rite of consecration . 8
    Appendix to ch. II — On the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff
    as Bishop per saltum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter III — The competent number of those ordaining . . . . . . . 21
Chapter IV — The legitimate solemnity of time . . . . . . . 23
Chapter V — The quality of place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Chapter VI — On the relationship between the institution of the Supreme Pontiff
    and his introduction into the Lateran palace . . . . 32
Chapter VII — Recapitulation of the conclusions of the first part . . . . 41

SECOND PART — On Enthronement as the Form of Institution, 10th-14th centuries

Chapter VIII — Enthronement was the form of institution for bishops elected as pontiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Chapter IX — On the rite of enthronement . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter X — On the relation of enthronement to the Chair of Saint Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
    § 1 — On the relation of enthronement to the chair in general 59
    § 2 — On the relation of enthronement to the Chair of Saint
        Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter XI — On the further evolution of enthronement up to
    the 14th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

THIRD PART — On the coronation of the Supreme Pontiff . . . . . . 75

Chapter XII — Survey of the history of the pontifical crown . . . . 75

Chapter XIII — On the institution of the Supreme Pontiff through coronation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Chapter XIV — Recapitulation of the principal conclusions . . . . 84

# FOOTNOTE DEFINITIONS

[^1]: "The institution of the same [pope] follows upon his election." *Commentary on the Roman Ordo 18*. Museum Italicum II, Paris 1689, CXVI.

[^2]: VII 88, Document I of the Code of Canon Law.

[^3]: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges, Constitutiones I 538; Causa I, Distinctio XXIII, ed. Friedberg, I, 78; G. EBERS, *The Pope and the Roman Curia* I: Election, Ordination and Coronation of the Pope, Paderborn 1916 (Source Collection for Ecclesiastical Legal History and Canon Law ed. E. Eichmann, 3) 44.

[^4]: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, loc. cit. 550; EBERS 46.

[^5]: Chapter 4, concerning the sentence of excommunication V 10 in *Extravagantes communes* ed. Friedberg II 1312.

[^6]: *Ceremonial of Gregory XIII* num. 4 ed. MABILLON, Museum Italicum II 223, *Roman Ceremonial* I 1, § 39, ed. Catalani, Rome 1750-1751, I 81, and the editor's commentary loc. cit. 82-83, GRAUERT loc. cit. 558 in note, *Dictionary of Catholic Theology* II 1, 1260-1261. A specimen of a letter of Clement V given before his coronation is exhibited by J. BATTELLI, *Papal Acts* fasc. 3, At the Vatican Library 1933, tab. 17 and note pp. 16-17.

[^7]: We deliberately say "ceremony" in general, so that we might be able to encompass all forms, even those of more recent times. Other terms are also employed, such as "installation" (P. DE PUNIET, *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2598), "introduction"—though we have deliberately avoided this last term because of its use for the introduction into the Lateran Palace.

[^8]: The first to insist on the juridical nature of the institution was H. GRAUERT, *Das Dekret Nikolaus II von 1059*, Hist. Jahrbuch I, Münster 1880, 549-560, who also employs these distinctions, even though he proceeded not without manifest errors in assigning the juridical effects of certain acts, as we shall see later when treating of consecration.

[^9]: GRAUERT l. c. 549-550, 558-559.

[^10]: MG. LL Constit. I 550; EBERS 46.

[^11]: In the place already cited.

[^12]: *Die Papstwahlen und die mit ihnen im nächsten Zusammenhänge stehenden Ceremonien in ihrer Entwicklung vom 11-14. Jahrhundert*, Göttingen 1871.

[^13]: *Die Besetzung des päpstlichen Stuhls unter den Kaisern Heinrich III und Heinrich IV* Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 20-22. Neue Folge 5-7, 1885, 1886, 1889. (In what follows we use the abbreviated citation ZKR for this periodical). A separate book was also published at Freiburg i. B. 1887.

[^14]: *From the Middle Ages to the Reformation. Research on the History of German Education* II 1, Berlin 1913-1938.

[^15]: HINSCHIUS, *The Canon Law of Catholics and Protestants in Germany* I 237-238; L. OBER, *The Translation of Bishops in Antiquity*, Archive for Catholic Canon Law 88, 1908, 635; 89, 1909, 32-33. More details at the beginning of the second part.

[^16]: Thus DE PUNIET: "It is appropriate to recall on this subject that, in antiquity, the ceremony of installation of the newly elected pope consisted chiefly in an episcopal ordination." Dict. Arch. Lit. III 2, 2595; see also L. LECTOR, *The Conclave. Origins -\ History -\ Organization -\ Ancient and Modern Legislation*, Paris 1894, 661. In antiquity it was called *ordinatio*, while *consecratio* signified the consecratory prayer. Dict. Arch. Lit. III 2, 2579-2580.

[^17]: PUNIET l. c. TH. MICHELS, *Contributions to the History of the Day of Episcopal Consecration in Christian Antiquity and in the Middle Ages*, Münster i. W. 1927, (Liturgical Historical Research 10), 34 n. 104.

[^18]: Whom MARTENS cites l. c. ZKR 20, 179.

[^19]: Clearly on this matter LECTOR l. c. 655-656.

[^20]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne I 440.

[^21]: LECTOR, *The Conclave* 661 n. 1. — Another case already in the year 1241 was that of Celestine IV, who "neither functioned with the pallium nor with the mitre nor with the bull," that is, died after 17 days without having obtained the solemnity of installation. Nevertheless, he was already a bishop. See HAMPE, *An Unprinted Report on the Conclave of 1241 in the Roman Septizonium*, Proceedings of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, Philosophical-Historical Class, Heidelberg 1913, 16 n. 4; MANN, *The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages*, London 1902 ff., XIII 148-150. Before consecration, indeed before ordination to the priesthood, Adrian V died in the year 1276, who nevertheless is numbered among the pontiffs. POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1709-1710. Before his coronation Urban VII died in the year 1590. PASTOR, *History of the Popes* X, Freiburg i. B. 1926, 516-517.

[^22]: JAFFÉ, Reg. I. LECTOR l. c. 661. GRAUERT, *Historical Yearbook* I 559 n. 2.

[^23]: Ed. SICKEL, Vienna 1889, 55-59.

[^24]: VAN HOVE, *Prolegomena to the Code of Canon Law*, Mechlin 1928, 126.

[^25]: II, 19. PL 95, 113 B; MANSI, *Sacred Councils: New and Most Complete Collection* X 681-682.

[^26]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 241.

[^27]: GRAUERT l. c. 558 n. 1.

[^28]: Cf. also formula 59 of the *Liber Diurnus*, ed. Sickel 49. — Concerning another interpretation of the texts employed by Grauert that has been proposed, we shall treat this below when dealing with the introduction of the pontiff into the Lateran palace.

[^29]: HINSCHIUS, *Kirchenrecht* [*Canon Law*] I 219-224; Tübingen 1930, 361-364; JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I H. I. WURM, *Die Papstwahl. Ihre Geschichte und Gebräuche* [*The Papal Election. Its History and Customs*], Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft Köln 1902, 14-16.

[^30]: MABILLON, *In Ordinem Romanum commentarius* [*Commentary on the Roman Order*] 17, *Museum Italicum* II, CX.

[^31]: H. GRISAR, *Geschichte Roms und der Päpste im Mittelalter. I Rom beim Ausgang der antiken Welt* [*History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages. I Rome at the End of the Ancient World*], Freiburg i. B. 1901, 303; MICHELS, *Bischofsweihetag* [*Episcopal Consecration Day*] 17-20; E. CASPAR, *Geschichte des Papsttums* [*History of the Papacy*] I.

[^32]: The letter, together with others sent in this matter, is extant in the *Collectio Avellana* num. 14, ed. O. Guenther CSEL 35, Vienna 1895-1898, 59-60; the complete letters are also presented by BARONIUS, *Annales Ecclesiastici* [*Ecclesiastical Annals*] ad ann. 418, ed. A. Theiner VII, Rome 1866, 152-161.

[^33]: *Avellana* num. 15, l. c. 60-61.

[^34]: *Avellana* l. c. 61.

[^35]: *Avellana* l. c. 60.

[^36]: See those things which F. EHRLE wrote in *Archive for the Literary and Church History of the Middle Ages* V, 1889, 565.

[^37]: § 6, MG. LL Constit. I 538; EBERS 44.

[^38]: Concerning the rite of episcopal consecration in general, cf. DE PUNIET, *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2579-2604; special chapters are found in DE PUNIET, *Le Pontifical Romain. Histoire et commentaire* II, Louvain et Paris 1931 (with a review by C. MOHLBERG, *Ephemerides Liturgicae* 45, 1931, 419-421); L. EISENHOFER, *Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik* II, Freiburg i. B. 1933. — Concerning the rite of consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, there exist several older books, which F. CAPPELLO reviews in *De Curia Romana iuxta reformationem a Pio X sapientissime inductam* II, Rome 1912, 561-562, whose doctrine he himself presents in the same work, 571-589. Since they scarcely treat the matter from a juridical perspective, they are of lesser importance for our purpose. Nevertheless, the following deserve to be cited: MABILLON, *In Ord. Rom. Comment.* 12, *Mus. Ital.* II, CX; MENARDUS in *PL.* 78, 505; GARNERIUS, *Dissertatio de ordinatione summi pontificis*, in the edition of *Libri Diurni* by E. DE ROZIÈRE, Paris 1869, 293-339. From more recent times, from the school of liturgical history, let the following be noted: DUCHESNE, *Origines du culte chrétien*, Paris 1903³, 362-383; (later editions of this work were not available to us); P. DE PUNIET in *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2595-2602; LECTOR briefly treats the matter comprehensively in *Le Conclave* 655-661. (The book by the same author *L'Election papale*, Paris 1896, is an excerpt from his principal work).

[^39]: MICHELS says: "The fact remains that the juridical disposition of the Roman character, even in liturgical matters, presses toward stronger regulation. The *Ordines Romani* bear witness to this." *Bischofsweihetag* 33-34.

[^40]: Concerning the Sacramentaries, their origin, antiquity, and nature, cf. A. I. SCHUSTER, *Liber Sacramentorum* I 3rd ed. Turin, Rome 1932, 4-5; VAN HOVE, *Prolegomena* 123.

[^41]: *Leonianum* ed. Feltoe, Cambridge 1896, 119-120; *Gelasianum*, ed. WILSON, Oxford 1894, 151-153.

[^42]: Ed. WILSON, *The Gregorian Sacramentary under Charles the Great*, London 1915, 143. The text is also found in MURATORI, *Liturgia Romana Vetus*, Venice 1748, II 271-272 and MARTÈNE, *De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus* I cap. 8, art. 11, ordo 3, vol. II Antwerp 1730, 114 and likewise ordo 5 and 11, vol. II 131, 184. The Gregorian Sacramentary is preserved only in the form it had during the time of Hadrian I (772-775): cf. SCHUSTER l. c.

[^43]: DE PUNIET: "It appears certain, in any case, that the holy pope revised it, so much does it reflect his own ideas on pontifical authority." *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2596.

[^44]: DE PUNIET l. c. 2595-2596.

[^45]: Ed. SICKEL 46-47; EBERS 174.

[^46]: These [manuscripts] Michel Andrieu reviews together with other printed editions in *Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge, I Les manuscrits*, Louvain 1931 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Etudes et documents fasc. 11), 21-22, 41, 42, 73, 75, 96-97, 104, 111, 126, 148, 163, 168, 194, 219, 278, 377, 422, 433, 473, 475, 476. — Concerning the origin and nature of the Romano-Germanic Pontifical, Andrieu discusses this in the same work, 494-548; A. Jungmann briefly summarizes the matter in *Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie* 56, 1932, 257-260.

[^47]: ANDRIEU in the same work, 21-22.

[^48]: L. GRAMATICA and G. GALBIATI, *Il Codice Ambrosiano del Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum*. Published under the auspices of the new Archbishop of Milan Cardinal Achille Ratti. *Analecta Ambrosiana*, Publications of the Ambrosian Library. Publishers Alfieri and Lacroix, Milan-Rome (1921), p XXIII 91-92.

[^49]: MICHELS, *Bischofsweihetag* 41-42.

[^50]: Canon 28 X, I 6, ed. Friedberg II 73; cf. also MABILLON, *In Ord. Rom. Comment.* 18, Mus. Ital. II, CXVIII and CXXI.

[^51]: DE PUNIET, *Dictionary of Christian Archaeology and Liturgy* III 2, 2592; EISENHOFER, *Handbook* II 376.

[^52]: Roman Ordinals I 19-20. The text is found in MABILLON *Museum Italicum* II 89-93. (All the Ordinals first published by Mabillon are also found in *Patrologia Latina* 78); EBERS 175. Other editions are reviewed by ANDRIEU, *Ordinals* I 19-20.

[^53]: ANDRIEU *loc. cit.* I 343, 345; THE SAME, *Note on an ancient redaction of the first Roman Ordinal*, *Review of Religious Sciences*, I, Strasbourg 1921, 385; EISENHOFER, *Handbook* I 106; what KOESTERS has in *Studies on Mabillon's Roman Ordinals*, Münster in Westphalia 1905, 25-44, since virtually everything refers to coronation, therefore concerning these matters later; MICHELS believes our Ordinal originated around 770; *Day of Episcopal Consecration* 34 n. 104; SCHNEIDER, *Rome and the Idea of Rome in the Middle Ages. The Spiritual Foundations of the Renaissance* Munich 1926, 111 believes the foundation originated around the year 700.

[^54]: And from the collections of Ordinals, which he reviews with exact description ANDRIEU, *Ordinals* I 19-20, 176-177, 200, 219, 300, 343, 345, 351-353, 355, 377, 397, 527-539, 530, 545.

[^55]: ANDRIEU, *Ordinals* I 487-488.

[^56]: Cf. DUCHESNE, *Liber Pontificalis* I 37; M. ANDRIEU, *The ceremony called "diligenter" at Saint Peter's in Rome at the beginning of the 9th century*, Revue des sciences religieuses I, 1921, 62-63; IDEM, *Ordines* I, 101, 233, 287, 367-368, 472, 371-372, 397; EISENHOFER, *Handbuch* II 379-380; DE SANTI, *The "Laudes" in the Coronation of the Supreme Pontiff*, La Civiltà Cattolica, Series 18, II, 1903, 387-403; H. GRISAR, *Analecta Romana. Dissertations, texts, monuments of art relating principally to the history of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages* I, Rome 1899, 214-216, 229-230; G. MORIN, *Notice on an important manuscript for the history of the symbol cod. Sessorian. 52*, Revue Bénédictine 14, 1897, 481-488; P. E. SCHRAMM, *Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio*, (Bibliothek Warburg) Leipzig-Berlin 1929, I 208 n. 4; E. PETERSON, *EIS THEOS. Epigraphic, form-critical and religious-historical investigations*, Göttingen 1926, 141-183, 312-319; CABROL in *Dictionary of Christian Archaeology and Liturgy* I 1, 240-265. Peterson in the cited work presents books on the use of acclamations in the East.

[^57]: Ed. M. HITTORP, *On the Divine Offices and Ministries of the Catholic Church, Various Books of Several Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church*, Cologne, Published by Gerwin Calenius and the heirs of Johann Quentell, 1568, 106-107. Concerning the nature of this collection and its relationship to the Romano-Germanic Pontifical, see ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 494-507. It originated at the beginning of the 11th century.

[^58]: Nevertheless, it underwent various changes. The first altered form is demonstrated by the codex of the British Museum Additional 17005, from the 12th century, with a different beginning "The primicerius with the schola begins the antiphon..." cf. Michel Andrieu, *Ordines* I 154-156. However, the additions to the order exhibited by Melchior Hittorp are all incidental. This type, which was from the 13th century, is represented by the codices of the Vatican Library Barberini Latin 681 and Ottobonian Latin 270 (On the 13th-century Pontifical see Michel Andrieu, *Immixtio et Consecratio. La consécration par contact dans les documents liturgiques du moyen-âge*, Bibliothèque de l'Institut de droit canonique de l'Université de Strasbourg, vol. II, Paris 1924, 144 seq.; Ludwig Fischer, *Der « Ordinarius Papae » und der « Pontificalis Ordinis Liber » des Wilhelm Duranti des Aelteren. Eine liturgiegeschichtliche Studie auf Grund spanischer Handschriften*, Römische Quartalschrift 38, 1930, 7-21. Pierre de Puniet, *L'ancien Pontifical des papes*, Ephemerides liturgicae nov. ser. 5, 1931, 26-40). Our order is found in Barberini Latin 631 fol. 73-74, Ottobonian Latin 270 fol. 76 v-77 v. On the Ottobonian codex cf. Hugo Ehrensberger, *Libri Liturgici Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae manuscripti*, Freiburg im Breisgau 1897, 549. During the 13th century, a desire probably arose to describe the rite more precisely: mention is made of the imposition of hands by all the bishops, the recitation of prayers in a loud voice by the ordaining bishop, in a subdued voice by the others, the conferring of the mitre, the prayer in receiving the pallium. Cf. Andrieu, *Ordines* I 524-525. The Pontifical of the Vatican Library Borghese 14 A 1, from the 14th century, takes a middle path between the first and this second form (on which cf. Ehrensberger l.c. 553-555). Barberini Latin 549, fol. 50-51, has the first form with additions of the second added in the margin. The following exhibit the second form in its entirety: Vatican Latin 5791, Borghese 72 A 1, Vatican Latin 4745 (cf. Ehrensberger l.c. 529, 517-518, 529-530) Vatican Latin 1153 (Ehrensberger 520-522), though with great variety in additions, some notice of which is provided by the edition of this Order in Mariano Gatticus, *Acta selecta caeremonialia Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae*, I, Rome 1753, 214, who also presents other manuscript codices; however, his edition is antiquated; Ludovico Antonio Muratori also has the text in *Liturgica Rom. vet.* II 447-449. Concerning the antiquity of these manuscript codices themselves, there is no single opinion between Pierre de Puniet, *Ephemerides lit.* 1931, 28 n. 1, who attempts to exhibit the Pontificals existing in the libraries of the city of Rome according to their antiquity, and Ehrensberger and the *Supplement to Ehrensberger* compiled by Henry Marriott Bannister and preserved among the catalogs of manuscripts of the Vatican Library. In the 14th and 15th centuries this Order disappears from the Pontifical books, probably because, even in those expanded forms, it was too summary and little suited to practical use, and in its place a new Order, originating at the end of the 13th century, is exhibited in the Pontificals, about which we shall speak shortly. It is noteworthy, however, that this ancient Order deriving from the *Liber Diurnus* was in use for almost ten centuries and thus constitutes evidence of an ancient continuous tradition that was preserved and changed only in small details, which is also a sign of the juridical significance of consecration, since the ancient tradition was so firmly conserved, while the rite of episcopal consecration of other bishops underwent much greater changes.

[^59]: Ed. WOLF VON GLANVEL, I Paderborn 1905, 240-241; Deusdedit says in his Prologue (l. c. 4-5): "Furthermore, it has pleased me to insert into this work the ancient order of election or consecration of the Roman Pontiff and his clergy. For certain persons formerly, in contempt of God's and the holy fathers' sanctions—namely for their own ostentation and to ascribe to themselves a vain authority which cannot stand by any canonical laws—wrote for themselves a new ordination of the same Roman Pontiff, in which they established things so nefarious and so hostile to God that I shudder to write them: let him who reads understand." KOESTERS, *Studien* 39-41, thought that Deusdedit was arguing against an Order similar to that which exists in MURATORI, *Liturgia* (cf. above note 58), and which was compiled under the influence of Gallican liturgy, and that he wished to reintroduce the ancient, simpler order—which, from what we have said about the continuity of tradition, seems hardly probable. ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 19-20, 24-25, speaks of new practices introduced into the consecration or of greater pomp employed, which provoked the Cardinal's indignation. FOURNIER-LE BRAS have a more correct interpretation, *Histoire des collections canoniques en occident depuis les fausses décrétales jusqu'au décret de Gratien*, II Paris 1932, 47, saying that Deusdedit was fighting against the decree on papal election of Nicholas II as interpolated by the imperial faction in their favor (cf. GRAUERT, *Hist. Jahrb.* I, 1880, 568-579), or even against the original form attributing the principal part in the pontifical election to the cardinal bishops, while on the contrary Deusdedit, as a cardinal priest, wished rather to protect the rights of the priests and deacons. BUSCHBELL had already proposed a similar interpretation (cf. KOESTERS l. c. 41, n. 3). Rejecting the second part of the FOURNIER-LE BRAS hypothesis, since the omission of that clause of the ancient Order "he cannot be other than a bishop" is better explained by the fact of this time, when this law no longer held force—therefore Deusdedit would establish nothing here in favor of his cardinalitial order—we believe the first part of the same hypothesis will be fully proven by comparing the cited text with Deusdedit's work *Libellus contra invasores et symoniacos et reliquos scismaticos* (ed. E. SACKUR MG. De lite II 292-365). The *Libellus* deals with the election and, as he says, promotion of the Supreme Pontiff in relation to imperial power; since imperial power consists precisely in notification and approbation preceding consecration, the end of the transcribed Order in the canonical collection and the end of the libellus against invaders are in complete accord. Moreover, in the prologue he says "of election and consecration"; therefore he does not insist on consecration alone. He examines in the *Libellus* the "decrees of the holy fathers which they established concerning the promotion of pontiffs" (*Libellus* 303); contempt for these is censured in the prologue; the vain authority, mentioned in the prologue, is ascribed to the antipope Guibert, whose followers are said to have violated the decree of Nicholas and to have added certain things (*Libellus* 310), "by whose authority he defends himself, so as to teach that he is what he is not nor ever can be" (*Libellus* 313); what "cannot stand by any canonical laws" is imperial authority in the election of the pontiff, the refutation of which the entire *Libellus* relies upon. "Nefarious... hostile to God" for Deusdedit is this tendency of the emperor, a "damnable custom" (*Libellus* 313); "let him who reads understand": for all knew what had been done especially by the antipopes at that time, whom he cites in *Libellus* 310. Cf. also E. HIRSCH, *Kardinal Deusdedits Stellung zur Laieninvestitur*, AKKR 88, 1908, 34-49; A. FLICHE, *La Réforme Grégorienne*, I Louvain-Paris 1924, *Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense* fasc. 6, 322-323.

[^60]: Ed. THANER, Oeniponte 1906-1915, 289-290. Concerning the sources from which Deusdedit and Anselmus of Lucca drew their Ordo, regarding its purpose and their independence, see ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 520-522; FOURNIER-LE BRAS II 11, 32, 34.

[^61]: Nevertheless, it did not pass into the Pontifical. The Ceremonial of Cencius Camerarius (Ordo XII according to Mabillon), later of Honorius III (1216-1227), when dealing with the consecration of the pontiff, says that it should be done "as contained in the ordo," num. 81, ed. P. FABRE-L. DUCHESNE, *Le Liber Censuum de l'Eglise Romaine*, I Paris 1905, 312 b; it probably alludes to this ordo. It alone provides an exact description of the imposition of the pallium upon the Supreme Pontiff.

[^62]: This is Ordo XIV according to MABILLON (*Museum Italicum* II 243-443). Our ordo is inscribed "Here begins the order by which the Roman Pontiff ought to be consecrated at the Basilica of Blessed Peter the Apostle" (*Museum Italicum* II 271-277). It is found in all the ceremonial books of the 14th and 15th centuries, some of which GATTICUS published in *Acta selecta caeremonialia*. KOESTERS believes (*Studien* 76-77) that our ordo originated only in the second half of the 14th century, probably in 1389 for the consecration of Boniface IX, but since it exists in manuscript codices that arose during the time of the Avignon exile, it is already established that it was compiled before the exile, inasmuch as it was inscribed for the basilica of blessed Peter. Thus codex lat. 937 of the Bibliothèque nationale of Paris displays it on fol. 14v ff.; it was indeed written in the 15th century, but because of certain marginal annotations referring to the end of the 13th century, we believe it to be a copy of some older codex already containing the order of consecration. Something similar must be said about codex lat. 936 of the same library, which displays our ordo on fol. 18v-25v and again on fol. 61-67. The Ceremonial of Gregory X (1271-1276) also contains the order of consecration of the pontiff as bishop, but it does not seem to have had much influence, since after a brief time a new and much more extensive Ceremonial already arose, namely that of Cardinal Stefaneschi. Gregory's Ceremonial is Ordo XIII according to MABILLON (*Museum Italicum* II 221-241).

[^63]: An intermediate type is constituted by Vatican Library manuscript Borghes. 72 A 1, which on folios 52-53v contains the customary order of the Pontificals described above, and at the end of the codex on folios 226-227v has added by another hand a portion of the new order (EHRENSBERGER deliberately omitted assigning pages 517-518 to it). The complete Order is exhibited in the Vatican Library Pontificals Vat. lat. 4744 I, Vat. lat. 4748 II, Vat. lat. 1152, Chis. C VI 181. A special recension of this order is contained in the Pontifical of William Durandus (Vat. lat. 1145, fol. 36v-43v); this was edited by GATTICUS, *Acta sel. caer.* 202-207; concerning the origin and nature of this Pontifical, see L. FISCHER (cf. n. 58).

[^64]: Published in 1485. Cf. DE PUNIET, *Le Pontifical Romain* I 55-59, 64, 67-69.

[^65]: First published by MARCELLUS CHRISTOPHORUS in 1519. A quasi-official edition was prepared by J. CATALANUS at Rome in 1750.

[^66]: It is found in the edition of the Pontifical published at Venice by the Juntas in 1561. EBNER 189 n. 2.

[^67]: Concerning this change in the liturgy, see ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 519-525; TH. KLAUSER, *Die liturgischen Austauschbeziehungen zwischen der römischen und der fränkischdeutschen Kirche vom achten bis zum elften Jahrhundert*, Hist. Jahrb. 53, 1933, 169-189; concerning the influence on the consecration of the pontiff, DE PUNIET, *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2598-2599, 2597.

[^68]: See what we have said concerning Order in the Pontificals.

[^69]: DE PUNIET l. c. 2597; IDEM, *L'ancien Pontifical des papes*, Ephemerides lit. Nov. ser. 5, 1931, 36-37.

[^70]: Concerning the life and works of Leonicus, F. GASPAROLO treats briefly in *Costituzione dell'archivio Vaticano e suo primo indice sotto il pontificato di Paolo V. Manoscritto inedito di Michele Lonigo. Studi e documenti di storia e diritto* 8, Roma 1887, 14-28; see also PASTOR, XIII 2, ed. 1-7, Freiburg 1929, 990 n. 5.

[^71]: Barb. lat. 2975, 2976; an incomplete commentary on the Ceremonial in 2963, 2964, 2965; some matters pertaining to consecration also in 2290.

[^72]: It is preserved in manuscript codex Vat. lat. 8416 of the Vatican Library. Cf. BURCKARD, *Diarium* ed. E. Celani (Muratori RISS XXXII 1) II, Città di Castello 1911-1913, 389.

[^73]: For the privilege of examining several manuscript codices of this private archive, we wish to express our due gratitude also in this place to the secretary of the Sacred Congregation and prefect of ceremonies, Msgr. B. NARDONE and C. RISPIGHI. Concerning the archive itself cf. F. EHRLE in *Archiv f. Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters* 5, 1889, 587-602, where also concerning the earlier catalog compiled by Formeli. More recent is G. PALMIERI, *Brevis notitia et catalogus archivi Sacrae Congregationis Caeremonialis*, Rome 1893. Some unpublished notices are contained in Vat. lat. 10.641 fol. 137 (114).

[^74]: Concerning Dini cf. MORONI, *Dizionario* 41, 180; several of whose manuscript works are preserved by the Vatican library. Concerning consecration in most recent times also LECTOR, *Le Conclave* 655-661.

[^75]: In Ord. Rom. comment. 18. Mus. Ital. II, CXIX. Cf. DUCHESNE, *Lib. Pont.* II, 320 n. 24; H. I. WURM, *Die Papstwahl. Ihre Geschichte und Gebräuche*; Veröffentlichungen der Görresgesellschaft, Cologne 1902, 195.

[^76]: MABILLON, *Museum Italicum* II 92; EBERS 175.

[^77]: Ed. Duchesne II 72, 151.

[^78]: *Life of Stephen III*, *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne I 468-469. MABILLON, *Commentary on the Roman Orders* 18, *Museum Italicum* II, CXIX-CXXI; LECTOR 658; ANDRIEU, "The Minor Orders in the Ancient Roman Rite," *Revue des sciences religieuses* 5, 1925, 358-359, 371-372.

[^79]: *Monumenta Germaniae* *Concilia* II 86; MANSI XII 717-718. DUCHESNE, *Liber Pontificalis* I 483-484 n. 52; ANDRIEU l. c. 258.

[^80]: "Let no one ever presume from among the laity, nor from any other order, unless ascending through the distinct grades, having been made a cardinal deacon or cardinal priest, to be promoted to the sacred honor of the pontificate." MANSI XII 719. In the same manner as in Order XXXVI, the promotion of deacon and priest is considered!

[^81]: ANDRIEU l. c. 272-273.

[^82]: MANSI XVIII 472. ANDRIEU l. c. 247-250.

[^83]: ANDRIEU l. c. 250; IDEM, *Ordines* I 465-548; KLAUSER, *Austauschbeziehungen* 182-187, who considers it probable: *that the decisive transition of the Roman Church to the Frankish-German liturgy took place in the years 962 to 964*, l. c. 187.

[^84]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 361; WATTERICH, *Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX usque ad finem saeculi XIII Vitae ab aequalibus con-scriptae*, Leipzig 1862, I 310; BONIZO, *Liber ad amicum* 7, MG. *De lite* I 601; cf. DELARC, *Saint Grégoire VII*, Paris 1899, III 14. This matter is of some importance, hitherto little considered, in explaining the question of why Gregory VII delayed his episcopal consecration for such a long time. Cf. MARTENS, ZKR 6, 1886, 51 (libri integri 168); FLICHE, *La Réforme Grégorienne* 2 vol. Louvain, Paris 1924-1925 (*Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense* 6-9) II 88.

[^85]: Therefore, when all had assembled from every direction, it was deliberated among them at what specific times the pope ought to be both promoted and consecrated. *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 314; cf. also 320 n. 24.

[^86]: WATTERICH, II 708-709. MANN X 391 says he was ordained on Holy Saturday.

[^87]: *Gesta Innocentii* 7, PL. 214, XX.

[^88]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1653.

[^89]: NOVAES, *Elementi della storia de' Sommi Pontefici*, 17 vol. Roma 1821-1822, 3rd ed., III 266.

[^90]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1797. There exists a certain uncertainty concerning the day, which nevertheless, considering the constant custom, we believe to have been eliminated; cf. NOVAES IV 10.

[^91]: *Die kirchlichen Quatember. Ihre Entstehung, Entwicklung und Bedeutung in liturgischer, rechtlicher und kulturhistorischer Hinsicht*, München 1914 (Veröffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar München IV, 3) 117: "There are isolated examples that the Popes themselves observed the Quatember as a time for ordination... The urgency of succession, the legal principle 'the pontiff is above the canons' made such strictness in observing ecclesiastical regulations concerning this matter appear superfluous."

[^92]: MABILLON, *Museum Italicum* II 224-225. The ceremonial also exists in GATTICUS 72-85; cf. ibidem 72 n. 19. KOESTERS, *Studien* 65-66.

[^93]: Here and in the Ceremonial of Gregory X, promotion to minor orders, to the subdiaconate and diaconate is also determined.

[^94]: In Vatican manuscript codex lat. 8416. This was done on Saturday, September 30, as Burckardus relates in his Diary, ed. Celani II 389.

[^95]: Manuscript codex tome III vol. 100 of the ceremonial archive.

[^96]: Ebers 173 n. 1. Cf. J. Saegmueller, *Textbook of Catholic Church Law* I 3rd ed., Freiburg i. B. 1914, 326.

[^97]: Jaffé, *Regesta* I 17.

[^98]: Ibid. I 52.

[^99]: Ibid. I 19 and 35.

[^100]: Saint Augustine writes in *Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis*, conference 3, day 16: *...and that Caecilianus did not wait for a primate to be ordained by a primate, since the custom of the Catholic Church holds otherwise, namely that not Numidian bishops, but those closer at hand ordain the bishop of the Church of Carthage, just as no metropolitan bishop ordains [the bishop] of the Roman Church, but the Bishop of Ostia, who is nearest*. CSEL 53, 78 (PL. 43, 641); From the same period is the statement: *The Roman Pontiff is customarily ordained by three bishops, of whom the first is the Ostian*. Duchesne, *Liber Pontificalis* I 202 n. 2.

[^101]: *Here he establishes that the bishop of Ostia who consecrates a bishop should wear the pallium and that the bishop of the city of Rome should be consecrated by the same bishop*. Ed. DUCHESNE I 202. Cf. also ibidem I 203 n. 2; GRISAR, *Geschichte Roms* I 303; DE PUNIET, *Dict. Arch. lit.* III 3, 2595; MENARDUS PL. 78, 505; concerning the pallium cf. EBERS 174 n. 1.

[^102]: For the year 1182 ed. DELISLE Rouen 1872-1873 II 110. Concerning St. Maximus cf. UGHELLI, *Italia Sacra*, ed. Coletti I 49.

[^103]: See above p. 98.

[^104]: Above p. 94.

[^105]: JAFFÉ, *Reg.* I 35.

[^106]: Ibidem I 36.

[^107]: *Lib. Pont.*: *And when there were no bishops who could ordain him, two bishops were found, John of Perugia and Bonus of Ferentino and Andrew, priest of Ostia, and they ordained him pontiff*. Ed. Duchesne I 303.

[^108]: *Lib. Pont.* l. c. I 360, 366.

[^109]: Ibidem I 469.

[^110]: Ibidem II 144; cf. 149 n. 17.

[^111]: Ibidem II 175; the reverse order, in which the Ostian bishop is named in third place, follows the order of delivering the orations in the consecration.

[^112]: "What do you think of Bishop Sico, who... did not hesitate to consecrate Leo... in our apostolic see?" MANSI XVIII 472. See also above p. 105.

[^113]: GEORGIUS DOMINICUS [George Dominic], *De liturgia Romani pontificis* [On the Liturgy of the Roman Pontiff], Rome 1731-1744 III 548-549. Cf. MABILLON, *Mus. Ital.* [Museum Italicum] II 560.

[^114]: The error, as if only the Bishop of Ostia ordained the pontiff and his privilege consisted in this, is already rejected by MABILLON, *In Ord. Rom. Comm.* [Commentary on the Roman Ordines] 18, *Mus. Ital.* [Museum Italicum] II, CXVIII-CXIX.

[^115]: *Lib. Pont.* [Liber Pontificalis] ed. Duchesne I 360.

[^116]: Ibidem I 366.

[^117]: Ibidem I 469; MG. *Conc.* [Monumenta Germaniae. Concilia] II 86.

[^118]: *Lib. Pont.* [Liber Pontificalis] ed. Duchesne II 144.

[^119]: Ibidem II 175.

[^120]: Ibidem II 197 n. 8.

[^121]: DUEMMLER, *Gesta Berengarii Imperatoris* [The Deeds of Emperor Berengar], Halle 1871, 145.

[^122]: *Chronicon* [Chronicle] II, MG. SS [Monumenta Germaniae Scriptores] VIII 411.

[^123]: *Codex Udalrici* num. 69, ed. JAFFÉ, *Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum* V 141-142; MG. SS. V 437-438; cf. P. KEHR, *Zur Geschichte Wiberts von Ravenna, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften* 1921, 971 n. 1.

[^124]: BERNOLDUS ad ann. 1087 ed. Watterich I 558 n. 2.

[^125]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 296.

[^126]: WATTERICH I 564 nota; cf. MARTENS ZKR 7, 8-9 (251-252).

[^127]: *Epistola* 126, 13, PL. 182, 280.

[^128]: MG. SS. XVII 454.

[^129]: *Annales Ianuenses* ad ann. 1159 MG. SS. XVIII 28.

[^130]: *Annales Reicherspergenses* ad ann. 1164. MG. SS XVII 470.

[^131]: FABRE-DUCHESNE, *Liber Censuum* I 312 b.

[^132]: KOESTERS, *Studien* 63.

[^133]: EBERS 200. — The Bishop of Ostia in the twelfth century also held the office of consecrating other bishops of the Roman curia. Roger of Hoveden narrates that Celestine III (1191-1198) gave counsel to the cardinals to elect a certain cardinal after his death, "For he loved him so much above the others that he had appointed him in his place to carry out all his duties, except in the consecration of bishops, which pertained to the office of the Bishop of Ostia." WATTERICH II 748.

[^134]: Vat. lat. 5633, fol. 119. Cf. concerning this codex G. CONSTANT, *Two manuscripts of Burchard*, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 22, 1902, 210-250; J. LESELLIER, *The misdeeds of the ceremonial master Jean Burckard*, l. c. 44, 1927, 11-34. — The cited rotulus is still unknown.

[^135]: Book I title II § 13, ed. Catalani 109.

[^136]: Ibidem. Cf. BARBOSA, *On the Supreme Pontiff* I 16, in ROCABERTI, *Bibliotheca maxima* IV 491.

[^137]: BURCKARD, *Book of Notes*, ed. Celani II 389.

[^138]: Cf. C.I.C. canon 236 § 4, 239 § 2 and the sources cited there.

[^139]: POTTHAST, *Reg.* II 1924.

[^140]: BURCKARD l. c. II 389.

[^141]: This is already found in the consecration of Pelagius I (555), *Liber Pontificalis* edited by Duchesne I 303. This is also established in the Roman Ordo XII (*of Cencius Camerarius*) number 81, EBERS 183. It was also present in the enthronement of Lucius III (1181), who himself had been Bishop of Ostia; WATTERICH II 650.

[^142]: We have on this matter an excellent and most recent monograph, already frequently cited, by TH. MICHELS, *Bischofsweihetag* [Bishop's Consecration Day] (1927).

[^143]: MICHELS 8-12. This testimony exists in the book 'Apostolic Tradition' [Αποστολικὴ Παράδοσις].

[^144]: "Therefore it is not excluded that Rome adopted the consecration day from the East. But there also remains the other possibility that East and West developed it uniformly from the same presuppositions. These presuppositions, however, are the celebration of the Eucharistic meal and sacrifice on Sunday, which retained its outstanding significance for the community even when celebrated daily, and the preferential position of the bishop in this celebration as the first liturgist. He who offered on Sunday for the community and with the community should also be consecrated on Sunday before the community for the sacrifice." MICHELS 12.

[^145]: *Avellana* [Collection] number 14, edited by Guenther 59-60.

[^146]: Ibid. number 15, same location 60.

[^147]: *Ibid.* no. 17, *loc. cit.* 64. MICHELS 19-20.

[^148]: *Avellana* no. 15: "Since it is established that everything was lacking in Boniface's case, we have deemed it superfluous to await our expected judgment, given that those who had presumed [to act] appear to have condemned his deed through their very earnest prayers." Ed. Guenther 60.

[^149]: MICHELS 40-42.

[^150]: WOLF GLANVEL 240; THANER 289; Polycarpus's second recension is found in a certain manuscript codex of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, lat. 3882 (fol. 16v-17 contains our *ordo*) written toward the end of the 14th century according to an original book probably composed 1130-1144. FOURNIER wrote about it in *Mélanges de l'École française de Rome* 37, 1918, 55-101 and FOURNIER-LE BRAS, *Histoire des collections* II 181; cf. VAN HOVE, *Prolegomena* 15. — We gratefully acknowledge the library administration for the photographic copy procured for us.

[^151]: FOURNIER-LE BRAS, *Histoire des collections* II 34, 49; ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 250-251. — The words *die vero dominica* ["on Sunday indeed"] are not found in the older codex of St. Gall 614 from the 9th century, page 228. ANDRIEU *Ordines* I 343, 345.

[^152]: MICHELS 50.

[^153]: *Ibid.* 45-46.

[^154]: Ed. Hinschius 75; MICHELS 43-44.

[^155]: FABRE, *Liber Censuum* I 312 b.

[^156]: MABILLON, *Museum Italicum* II 271.

[^157]: Cf. MICHELS I n. 2.

[^158]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 175.

[^159]: *Ibidem* II 191.

[^160]: *Ibidem* II 1 states that he was consecrated "on the feast of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist," which in that year fell on a Sunday. Thus MICHELS: "But we need not see in this more than a remark suggested by the fortuitous coincidence of Sunday and the apostolic feast day" 50.

[^161]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 143.

[^162]: Cf. e.g. I 49, 55, 57, 59, 75, 95, 111, 136, 137 etc.; all from the fifth and sixth centuries.

[^163]: *Life of Boso* in *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 386.

[^164]: BURCKARD, *Liber notarum*, ed. Celani II 389.

[^165]: MICHELS 50 n. 16.

[^166]: Since this question pertains more to papal election matters, and furthermore the note concerning the nearest Sunday never had any special juridical significance for the institution, we do not treat this matter further. Cf. GRISAR, *Geschichte Roms* I 595-596, LECLERCQ, *Le Conclave* 661.

[^167]: MABILLON, *Mus. Ital.* II 242; FABRE, *Lib. Censuum* I 312 b.

[^168]: *Bischofsweihetag* 51.

[^169]: MABILLON, *Mus. Ital.* II 271.

[^170]: Concerning the church of Saint Theodora as the place of election, cf. DUCHESNE, *Lib. Pont.* I 230 n. 1 and G. MORIN in *Revue Bénédictine* 1941, 325 n. 1.

[^171]: *Avellana* num. 17, ed. Guenther 64.

[^172]: *Avellana* l. c. 64. Cf. MICHELS, *Bischofsweihetag* 19 n. 64.

[^173]: JAFFÉ, *Reg.* I 37.

[^174]: Ibidem I 36.

[^175]: Ibidem I 96; *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne I 260.

[^176]: JAFFÉ, *Reg.* I 100. Cf. also GRISAR, *Geschichte Roms* I 461.

[^177]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 111, 112; cf. GRISAR, *History of Rome* I 494.

[^178]: *Origins* 349 n. 1.

[^179]: P. KEHR, *Italia Pontificia* I Rome-Berlin 1906, 136 num. 6. The original document no longer exists. Cf. DUCHESNE, *Origins* 349 n. 1. GRISAR l. c. I 766. Concerning this privilege in the Middle Ages wrote PETRUS MALLIUS [Peter Mallius], whom ONUPHRIUS PANVINIUS [Onofrio Panvinio] uses extensively in *On the Ancient Memorable Things and Excellence of the Basilica of Saint Peter... seven books,* ed. MAI, *Roman Miscellany* IX Rome 1843, 237-238, 343-345.

[^180]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 143.

[^181]: *Avellana Collection* num. 17, ed. Guenther 64.

[^182]: EBERS 176.

[^183]: For example, Ottobonian [manuscript] 270, EHRENSBERGER 519.

[^184]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 143.

[^185]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne I 472.

[^186]: Ibidem II 49.

[^187]: Ibidem II 72.

[^188]: Ibidem II 144.

[^189]: Ibidem II 152.

[^190]: Ibidem II 175.

[^191]: Ibid., II 192.

[^192]: LIUDPRAND OF CREMONA, *History of Otto*, c. 15. *Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Liudprandi opera*, Hannover 1877 (2nd ed.) 134.

[^193]: BONIZO, *To a Friend*, WATTERICH I 197; LEO OF MONTE CASSINO ibid. I 194.

[^194]: BONIZO, *To a Friend*, MGH *De lite* I 601.

[^195]: BERNOLD under the year 1087, WATTERICH I 558 n. 2.

[^196]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 296-297.

[^197]: *Letters of the electors of Anacletus to King Lothair and Diego of Compostela*, WATTERICH II 186, 189.

[^198]: MANN IX 7-11.

[^199]: OTTO OF FREISING, Watterich II 284.

[^200]: Watterich II 282.

[^201]: Alexander himself in EBERS 181.

[^202]: Victor's encyclical, WATTERICH II 461.

[^203]: *Deeds of Innocent* c. 7. PL 214, XX.

[^204]: Register 1341 ed. Pressutti I 222.

[^205]: MANN XIV 14.

[^206]: Cf. the second part of the dissertation.

[^207]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1653. Cf. his life in the *Liber Pontificalis.*

[^208]: NOVAES III 266.

[^209]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1797. *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 465.

[^210]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1924.

[^211]: Ibidem II 1757; *Liber Pontificalis* l. c. II 459.

[^212]: POTTHAST, *Regesta* II 1916; *Liber Pontificalis* II 467. Cf. also F. X. SEPPELT, *Monumenta Coelestiniana* Paderborn 1921 (Quellen und Forschungen 19th Volume).

[^213]: Thus CENCIUS CAMERARIUS (Ordo XII). The *Ceremonial of Cardinal Stefaneschi* (Ordo XIV) contains the proper order of coronation outside the City.

[^214]: *The Decree of Nicholas II from 1059*, *Historisches Jahrbuch* I 1880, 549-554.

[^215]: l. c. 549-551.

[^216]: l. c. 551-552.

[^217]: GRAUERT l. c. 552-553.

[^218]: Ibidem 554-560.

[^219]: Moreover, regarding the origin of the distinction between *ius ad rem* (right to a thing) and *ius in re* (right in a thing), whether Roman or Germanic, the matter has not been definitively settled; cf. F. GILLMANN, *Zum Problem vom Ursprung des ius ad rem*, Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, 113, 1933, 463-485.

[^220]: L. c. 559 n. 2.

[^221]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 72.

[^222]: Ibidem II 106.

[^223]: Ibidem II 140.

[^224]: Ibidem I 471; cf. I 468 et 470.

[^225]: JAFFÉ, *Reg.* I 284.

[^226]: See in the first chapter, page 92.

[^227]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne I 440.

[^228]: EBERS 21. — Moreover, even up to our times, a bishop "elect" is distinguished from a bishop "consecrated."

[^229]: Thus already in CENCIUS CAMERARIUS ed. Fabre-Duchesne *Liber Censuum* I 311 a-312 b. His words are repeated almost verbatim in all subsequent ordinals.

[^230]: Ed. Duchesne II 296.

[^231]: *Studien* 59-64.

[^232]: So named because of the verse sung "He lifts up the poor from the dung heap" [Psalm 113:7]. Cf. Jean Mabillon, *Commentary on the Roman Ordinals*, chapter 18. *Museum Italicum* II, CXXI-CXXV; Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger treats the matter excellently in *Papal Legends of the Middle Ages*, Munich 1863 (3rd ed.). For a depiction of the seat itself, see Philippe Lauer, *The Lateran Palace: A Historical and Archaeological Study*, Paris 1911, plate 17; cf. ibid. 158 n. 2; Gustav Adolf Zoepffel, *The Papal Elections* 200-206.

[^233]: cf. Onofrio Panvinio, *On the Principal and Most Sacred Basilicas of the City of Rome, Which They Call the Seven Churches*, Rome, published by the heirs of A. B. Blasius 1570, 119; this is an extract from a more extensive book by the same author on the Lateran Basilica, preserved in Vatican Latin 6110 fol. 30v and 63v. Giovanni Battista Rasponi made extensive use of this work in *On the Lateran Basilica and Patriarchate*, Rome, printed by Ignazio de Lazzeris 1656.

[^234]: The quoted words are from the Life of Paschal II, in the place cited. Concerning the ritual of introduction to the Lateran Palace in general, the following have written: F. CANCELLIERI, *Storia de' solenni possessi de' Sommi Pontefici detti anticamente processi o processioni dopo la loro coronazione dalla basilica Vaticana alla Lateranense*, Rome 1802; this is a collection of texts relating to those processions, though of greater significance for more recent times than for the Middle Ages. ZOEPFFEL treats the matter excellently in *Die Papstwahlen* 191-232, even though not all his conclusions rest upon historical documents. Of great importance are the notes added by Duchesne to the aforementioned Life of Paschal II in Lib. Pont. II 296, whom PH. LAUER follows on page 159; regarding the symbolism of the practices employed in the Middle Ages, KONRAD BURDACH has much to offer in *Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation* II 1. *Rienzo und die geistige Wandlung seiner Zeit*, Berlin 1913-1928, 366, 402. — More detailed descriptions are provided by LUNADORO, *Relazione della corte di Roma*, Padua 1650, Bracciano 1649; P. ADINOLFI, *Roma nell'età di mezzo* Rome, 1881-1882; *Die Papstwahl. Eine Beschreibung und Abbildung der Gebräuche und Feierlichkeiten bei Erledigung und Wiederbesetzung des päpstlichen Stuhles*, Augsburg 1846 (7th ed.); L. LECTOR, *Le Conclave* 683-696. The books which Hinschius lists in note I 217 were not available to us. A few items are also found in Dict. Arch. lit. III 2, 2601.

[^235]: "When keys are handed over, possession of goods stored in warehouses is considered to be transferred, if the keys are delivered at the warehouses: by this act the buyer immediately acquires ownership and possession, even if he has not opened the warehouses." Ed. MOMMSEN I, 1870, 534.

[^236]: "The delivery of keys produces the transfer of goods that are kept in warehouses, and this method in medieval practice was applied without question for the transfer of buildings." S. RICCOBONO, *Traditio ficta*, Zeitschrift der Savignystiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (which we use in the following citations with the abbreviation ZRG) Rom. Abt. 34, 1913, 197. See also A. PERTILE, *Storia del diritto italiano dalla caduta dell'impero romano alla codificazione*, IV, 226-238.

[^237]: C. BORCHLING, *Rechtssymbolik im germanischen und römischen Recht*, Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1923-1924, 227-251. There also concerning the earlier book on the symbolism of the rod by the author Amira.

[^238]: Thus L. DUCHESNE in the notes cited regarding the life of Paschal II.

[^239]: *Papstwahlen* 204-205. According to Zoepffel, the juridical moment comes later. — P. de Puniet explains the introduction into the Lateran basilica and palace from the fact that, with the consecration having been transferred to the basilica of Saint Peter, some rite of enthronement in the Lateran basilica would be repeated in the manner of a second enthronement. He assigns this rite to the 10th or 11th century. *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2601. But the rite of introduction itself is much more ancient! Cf. p. 120. Nevertheless, we would wish to acknowledge some connection with the rite of enthronement, even if we conceive of it in another way, concerning which we will speak later when treating the origin of enthronement and its relation to the episcopal chair. Some difficulty also arises from the fact that in medieval times (12th and 13th centuries) there was present an accumulation of ceremonies often signifying virtually the same thing, which is a sign of later evolution, from which accumulation the meaning of individual ceremonies is extracted with difficulty and distinguished from others. Cf. Borchling l. c. 243.

[^240]: C. Borchling l. c. 246.

[^241]: Zoepffel l. c. 214.

[^242]: Vat. lat. 1152, fol. 21; 14th century. The miter is placed upon the bishop in likeness of the pontiff's crown. Cf. part three.

[^243]: Ed. Fabre-Duchesne, *Liber Censuum* II 90 b-91 a. Also in Koesters, *Studien* 87.

[^244]: EBERS 21; Similarly the acts of the council report: "... we mutually gave an oath that no one would conduct the election of the pontificate without the others, but that we would choose as our bishop the one whom divine providence would grant from his counsel, from the body of our holy church, namely from among the priests or deacons, according to the tradition of this apostolic see." In DUCHESNE, *Liber Pontificalis* I 480 n. 3. — Exceptions admitted from this law were only two up to Stephen III: Fabian and Silverius, (who were laymen). Ibid. I 481 n. 5.

[^245]: EBERS 175.

[^246]: *Annales Fuldenses* IV 812 MG. SS. I 397.

[^247]: Cf. E. DÜMMLER, *Auxilius and Vulgarius. Sources and Research on the History of the Papacy at the Beginning of the Tenth Century*, Leipzig 1866; Idem, *Gesta Berengarii Imperatoris. Contributions to the History of Italy at the Beginning of the Tenth Century*, Halle 1871.

[^248]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 229.

[^249]: Ibid. II 229 n. 2.

[^250]: JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I 449.

[^251]: Thus DEUSDEDIT (ed. Wolf-Glanvel I 240) and ANSELM OF LUCCA (ed. Thaner 289) omitted the section concerning the bishop in the enumeration of orders.

[^252]: *Life of Victor III* in WATTERICH I 561.

[^253]: K. HOFMANN, *The 'Dictatus Papae' of Gregory VII. A Legal-Historical Explanation*, Paderborn 1933. (Görres Society. Legal and Political Science Section 63). 22 n. 43.

[^254]: Whether Marinus had truly been a bishop before his election was at one time in doubt. But it is entirely certain. Cf. DÜMMLER, *Gesta Berengarii* 69; idem, *History of the East Frankish Kingdom* II 216 n. 47; MANN, III 354; JAFFÉ, *Reg.* I 425. (Cerensis = of the City of Cere = Cervetri).

[^255]: It was written at the beginning of the tenth century. Ed. Dümmler, *Gesta Berengarii* 137-154; also in PL. 129.

[^256]: Ibid. 145.

[^257]: Ibid. 141.

[^258]: Ibid. 139.

[^259]: Ibid. 138-139.

[^260]: Ibid. 140.

[^261]: MANSI XVIII 222.

[^262]: *Continuation of Regino* at the year 965, *Rer. Germ. SS*. 176.

[^263]: ZOEPFFEL, *Papstwahlen* 260 n. 112 a, citing one example for the use of the word "inthronizare" from the *Invectives*, another from the year 1037, and ignoring the fundamental principle of the difference between consecration and inthronization arising from episcopal elections, says that the use of the word at that time was rare, whom GRAUERT follows in *Hist. Jahrb*. I, 1880, 554 n. 1. The application of inthronization in the 9th century was rare, but the term was entirely well-known, as we shall see later. Besides the places cited, the word "inthronizare" still occurs in the *Invectives*, DÜMMLER l. c. 142-143, 147-148. From the first part of the 11th century is the example brought forward by ZOEPFFEL, the bull of Benedict X of the year 1057 for Bishop Peter of Silva Candida, which is extant in UGHELLI, *Italia Sacra* I 100-107; "inthronizare" occurs on 106 A.

[^264]: DESIDERIUS, ABBOT OF MONTE CASSINO, *Dialogues*, Book 3, Patrologia Latina 149, 1005-1006. BENZO reports in *To Henry IV*, 7, Chapter 2: "Then the king (Henry III) took the Bishop of Bamberg with a powerful hand and made him sit in the apostolic orchestra. After he had been greeted by all, as is the custom, the synod was dissolved. On Christmas Day, however, the pope was consecrated." Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores XI 671. The meaning of this action, whose "substantial accuracy" is to be believed according to MANN, V 284, can in no way be that first adoration which always immediately followed the election. It is called the apostolic orchestra because it was the episcopal seat in the basilica of St. Peter. Concerning this, [we shall speak] in another chapter. Benzo shows his inclination to use terms from Roman antiquity; cf. DU CANGE under the word "orchestra" and FORCELLINI under "orchestra"; P. SCHRAMM, *Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio* Leipzig-Berlin 1929, (Studies of the Warburg Library 17) I 258-260.

[^265]: MARTENS, Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 5, 177-178.

[^266]: BRUNO OF SEGNI, *Life of Saint Leo IX* in WATTERICH I 97; WIBERT, *Life of Leo IX*, II 2, WATTERICH I 151 (Concerning a certain difficulty arising from this text, see what will be said immediately below); ANSELM OF REIMS in *History of the Dedication of the Church of Saint Remigius*, WATTERICH I 114; BONIZO l. c. WATTERICH I 102. — Concerning Victor II see BONIZO, WATTERICH I 185.

[^267]: *Chronicle of Monte Cassino*, WATTERICH I 194; BONIZO, WATTERICH I 196-197.

[^268]: SAINT PETER DAMIAN in *Letter to Henry of Ravenna*, WATTERICH I 204.

[^269]: BONIZO, WATTERICH I 208; (cf. also the other recension ibid. 209). LEO OF MONTE CASSINO, WATTERICH I 214.

[^270]: In the narrative accounts of the institution of pontiffs from this period, we have general expressions such as "to elevate" (*evehere*) or "to promote to the apex of apostolic heights" (*provehere ad apostolici culminis apicem*); thus, for example, Nicholas II in his decree, EBERS 44. Other expressions occur, used interchangeably for elected bishops or non-bishops by some writers, such as "to consecrate" (*consecrare*) and "to ordain" (*ordinare*). For example, concerning Clement II, Benzo says that he was consecrated ("the pope is consecrated") MG. SS. XI 671; Wibertus in the *Life of Leo* openly states "...with all applauding, he is consecrated and on the Sunday of the beginning of Lent... he is enthroned on the apostolic chair" WATTERICH I 1511; the Anonymous of Haserensis in the book *On the Bishops of Eichstätt* says of Gebhard "...in consecration he was called Victor," in WATTERICH I 180; concerning the same person, the *Roman Annals* state "...they consecrated him as Roman bishop" WATTERICH I 188; concerning the same, Berthold, *Annals* for the year 1054 "in the following Lent on Maundy Thursday 1054 he was ordained pope" MG. SS. V 269. Concerning the antipope Benedict X, the words "to enthrone" occur, cf. n. 268; "to promote to the heights of the apostolate" Leo Cassinensis WATTERICH I 214; "to ordain," *Roman Annals*, WATTERICH I 216; "to elevate to papal dignity," Bonizo, WATTERICH I 207. Concerning Nicholas II, the *Roman Annals* use the word "to ordain" WATTERICH I 217. Concerning Alexander II (1061), the *Altaich Annals Major* report, introducing the pontiff himself speaking: "...they dragged me protesting and resisting and, placing me unwillingly on the apostolic see, they consecrated me. And this they did, who are known to have the care and power of electing and consecrating the pontiff according to the ancient custom of the Romans." For the year 1064; MG. SS. XX 814. He, however, was bishop of Lucca. Nevertheless, Bonizo alone always follows the exact manner of speaking, using the term "to enthrone" (*inthronizare*) for bishops elected as pontiffs, "to consecrate" for other elected persons. This is of great importance, since he was on the side of the pontiffs and well instructed in the knowledge of ceremonial matters, so that his usage of language is of much greater importance for discerning the truth of things in ceremonial matters than the manner of speaking of others. Peter Damian does not use the term "to consecrate" in place of "to enthrone"; he speaks of enthronement only in one place, and indeed of Alexander II, *Synodal Disputation*, MG. *De lite* I 78. Cf. MARTENS, ZKR 5, 180-181; 6, 26-33 (143-150).

[^271]: Martens has a correct principle of explanation in that he attempts to deduce the use of the word "to consecrate" in place of "to enthrone" from the fact that previously elected bishops were not bishops before becoming pontiffs. But this external connection is also completed by an internal one, concerning which more will be said in what follows. The cause of confusion also comes from the fact that neither Zoepffel nor Martens present anything certain about the rite of enthronement, which will be discussed in the following chapter.

[^272]: Martens enumerates various different errors, especially of historical writers, in *Zeitschrift für katholische Rechtswissenschaft* 5, 179-181. All, however, rest on the same false foundation, about which we have spoken. — See also Michels, *Bischofsweihetag* 50 n. 15.

[^273]: In Watterich I 151.

[^274]: *Zeitschrift für katholische Rechtswissenschaft* 5, 182-183. A similar term already occurs in the enthronement of Pope Formosus, who is called "consecrated" in the *Invectives*, ed. Dümmler, *Gesta Berengarii* 145.

[^275]: Martens *Zeitschrift für katholische Rechtswissenschaft* 5, 178.

[^276]: Ibidem 6, 86-90, 96 (203-207, 213).

[^277]: G. Meyer von Knonau, *Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V*. III 530-534 n. 12.

[^278]: Grauert, *Historisches Jahrbuch* I, 1880, 558 n. 1.

[^279]: Thus in the intronization of Damasus II, as witnessed by Hermann Contractus (Hermann the Lame), under the year 1048. *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores* V 128; of Leo IX as witnessed by Bruno of Toul, Watterich I 97; of Victor II as witnessed by Bonizo of Sutri "when those performing the intronization called him by another name, Victor," Watterich I 185; also Berthold of Reichenau *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores* V 269; of the antipope Benedict X, again as witnessed by Bonizo of Sutri, Watterich I 207; of Nicholas II by the same witness, Watterich I 207, and of others.

[^280]: Wetzer-Welte, *Church Lexicon* II 2nd ed. Freiburg i. B. 1883, 1644.

[^281]: Watterich I 102.

[^282]: In Watterich I 240. — This text demonstrates that there existed a difference between the election and another act pertaining to taking possession of the papacy, namely that which is necessary for the exercise of full right, or intronization, by which possession is taken, being truly a juridical act.

[^283]: "Nevertheless, by apostolic authority we decree what we have decreed in our other assemblies: that if anyone should be intronized to the Apostolic See through money or human favor or popular or military tumult, without the harmonious and canonical election and blessing of the cardinal bishops and then of the subsequent orders of religious clergy, he shall be held not as pope or apostolic, but as apostate." Ebers 46.

[^284]: In the year 1059, § 6: "Clearly, after the election has been made, if warlike tumult or any kind of human endeavor motivated by malicious intent should prevent the one who has been elected from being enthroned in the apostolic see according to custom, nevertheless the elected person shall obtain papal authority to govern the holy Roman church and to dispose of all its resources, which we know that blessed Gregory did before his consecration." EBERS 44. In the year 1060: "But if he cannot accomplish this within the City, assembled by our apostolic authority in a place that pleases them, let them elect whomever they have chosen, with authority granted to him for governing and disposing of the affairs and welfare of the holy Roman church, according to what seems best to him, in keeping with the circumstances of the times, just as if he were already fully enthroned." EBERS 46.

[^285]: *Papstwahlen* 243-254.

[^286]: *ZKR* 5, 234-235.

[^287]: Zoepffel enumerates and rejects their opinion in *Papstwahlen* 237-239. Hermann Grauert asserts that the juridical significance of enthronement and introduction is the same, *Hist. Jahrb.* I, 1880, 554-555, n. 1.

[^288]: Cf. WATTERICH I 102, 185, 256, etc. more worthy and beneficial to the apostolic see per-\ [Editor's note: This footnote cuts off and is not continued on the next page].

[^289]: PL. 129, 1096-1097. Concerning *De Auxilio*, see also DÜMMLER, *Auxilius und Vulgarius*.

[^290]: L. c. 1097.

[^291]: DÜMMLER has interpreted this text solely as concerning the calumny of adversaries, saying nothing about their significance for the ceremonial question. *Auxilius und Vulgarius*, 7 and n. 2. MANN IV 48, states: Formosus "was simply enthroned, and received the hommage of all," adding nothing further. The most recent dissertation on Formosus remains completely silent, G. Domenici, *Il Papa Formoso*, *Civiltà Cattolica*, 75, 1924, I 106-120, 518-530, II 121-135, saying concerning the question that Formosus had been "consecrated"; II 122. Whether the book on Formosus written by Lapotre (Paris 1895) addressed this question, we do not know, since this very rare book has not been available to us. Cf. *Dict. Théol. Cath.* VI 599.

[^292]: This rubric is found, for example, in the Pontificals of the Vatican Library: Barb. lat. 631, fol. 74-74v, 13th century; Ottobon. lat. 270, fol. 77-77v, 14th century; Vat. lat. 5791, fol. 65 (64b); Borghes. 72 A 1, fol. 54-54v; Vat. lat. 1154, fol. 38v; Vat. lat. 1155, fol. 45-46v; Reg. 1930, fol. 31v-32; Vat. lat. 2744 is found in Gatticus I 214; Muratori also has the text of the ritual in *Liturgia Romana Vetus* II 449. Vatican lat. 6831, fol. 170-171, presents this rubric alone without the order of consecration. Cf. descriptions of these Pontificals (except Barb.) in Ehrensberger 519, 529, 517, 522, 540, 530, 533.

[^293]: Jean Mabillon, *Museum Italicum* II 278. Ebees 201-203.

[^294]: E. A. Loew, *The Beneventan Script. A History of the South Italian Minuscule*, Oxford 1914, 292 n. 2, 365.

[^295]: Cassinese Codex 451 and Codex D. 5 of the Vallicellian Library, concerning which cf. ANDRIEU, *Ordines* I 194, 200, 527. — The Pontifical preserved in Sessorian Codex 52 of the Vittorio Emanuele National Library in Rome is indeed for the use of the pontifical chapel, but other orders for the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff are also missing. It is from the 11th century and today bears the number 2096. Concerning it cf. ANDRIEU l. c. I 287-294, 484, 472.

[^296]: Text according to Barb. lat. 631 fol. 132 v-133. (The symbol // indicates the beginning of a new folio).

[^297]: Decree of the year 1059 § 2, EBERS 44.

[^298]: *Invectiva in Romam*, ed. Dümmler, *Gesta Berengarii* 145.

[^299]: Ibidem 141.

[^300]: *Continuatio Reginonis* for the year 965, *Rer. Germ. SS.* 176.

[^301]: Barb. lat. 631, fol. 133-133 v.

[^302]: *Ceremonial of Gregory X* (*Ordo Rom.* Mabillon XIII) Mabillon, Mus. Ital. II 226-227; Ceremonial of Cardinal Stefaneschi, Ibidem II 254-258. It begins: «A bishop who is elected pope is not consecrated anew, but is blessed...».

[^303]: DÜMMLER, *Gesta Berengarii* 141, 145.

[^304]: MANSI XVIII 222: "Amolo of Turin said: 'Sylvester of Porto, tell us, were you present at the election of Pope Formosus?' He replied: 'I was present, and we all enthroned him.'"

[^305]: Ferdinando Ughelli, *Italia Sacra* I 106 A.

[^306]: Because it was an ancient custom, he does not enumerate them as being known from elsewhere. Thus concerning Leo IX in Watterich I 102, Victor II ibid. I 185, Nicholas II ibid. I 208, 209.

[^307]: Of the year 1059 § 2, EBERS 44; of the year 1060, *[the ceremonial] of Gregory X and Cardinal Stefaneschi*, cf. EBERS 46.

[^308]: Thus Saint Peter Damian in his *Letter to Henry of Ravenna* WATTERICH I 204-205. "The priest must undoubtedly be deposed, because he has usurped for himself the privilege of the pontificate." Ibid. 205.

[^309]: Bonizo of Sutri, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica*, *De lite* I 614; Gebhard of Salzburg, Jaffé, *Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum* V 141-142; Bernold of Constance, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica*, *Scriptores* V 437-438. Cf. Paul Fridolin Kehr, *Zur Geschichte Wiberts von Ravenna* [*On the History of Wibert of Ravenna*], 971.

[^310]: Cf. chapter III pp. 108-110.

[^311]: Thus in many of the pontifical books cited in note 292. Thus also the *Ceremonial of Gregory X and Cardinal Stefaneschi*, cf. n. 302.

[^312]: According to Geoffrey of Vendôme in Watterich II 650. Cf. Mann X 241-242.

[^313]: Jaffé, *Regesta* I 435.

[^314]: According to Wibert II 2, Watterich I 151. Given the explanation of this text provided in chapter eight, the difficulty concerning the day of inthronization is resolved, since it concerns a single ceremony; cf. Watterich I 113 n. 3; Delarc I 114 n. 1.

[^315]: Jaffé, *Regesta* I 383. Nevertheless, it took place at night according to Peter Damian, Watterich I 204.

[^316]: According to Ekkehard, Watterich I 459.

[^317]: Berthold, under the year 1054, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores V 269.

[^318]: *Annales Romani*, *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 347. The observation made by Duchesne in the same place 347 n. 1, that Gregory could have been inthronized even on a day other than Sunday, since he was already a bishop, does not conceive the matter entirely correctly. Even inthronization performed on another day was an exception.

[^319]: Of the year 1059 § 6, Ebers 44; of the year 1060, Ebers 46.

[^320]: *Annales Romani* Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores V 469.

[^321]: Bonizo, Watterich I 102.

[^322]: Ibidem 185.

[^323]: MANN VI 229-231. The *Roman Annals* state: "Then the said Archdeacon Hildebrand with his elected pontiff proceeded to the Lateran patriarchium, and they ordained him Roman Pontiff..." From these words some have deduced that Nicholas was enthroned in the Lateran; WATTERICH I 217; cf. JAFFÉ, *Regesta* I (edition of 1851) 384; DELARC II 88. The Annals, however, describe two different actions: the introduction into the Lateran patriarchium and the enthronement in the basilica of St. Peter.

[^324]: BERNOLD [OF CONSTANCE] for the year 1083, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores* V 438; BENZO [OF ALBA], book VII Prologue, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores* XI 669.

[^325]: BENZO VII 2, MG. SS. XI 672; cf. also II 2, l. c. 613; II 4, l. c. 614; III 26, l. c. 632. Against this account stands Cardinal Boso, saying: "he was enthroned in the chair of blessed Peter according to the custom of the Church," *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 358 (WATTERICH I 256), which words seem to indicate that everything was performed according to custom, and therefore in the basilica of blessed Peter. MARTENS, ZKR 6, 4-5 (121-122) and MEYER-KNONAU I 221 n. 4 believe Benzo's account to be true on account of the many circumstances related. DELARC II 164 n. 1 rejects it. Concerning Gregory VII: BONIZO MG. *De lite* I 601; *letter of Gregory VII* to Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, ed. E. CASPAR, *Das Register Gregors VII.* MG. Ep. sel. II, 1-2, Berlin 1920-1923, 5; cf. also Reg. VII 14 a, cap. 7, CASPAR 483.

[^326]: *Annales Romani*, WATTERICH I 255-256.

[^327]: ZOEPFFEL, *Papstwahlen* 258.

[^328]: However, departing from the decrees of Nicholas II.

[^329]: Cf. ZOEPFFEL l. c. 237-239, 259. J. MARX still speaks of inthronization in the Lateran basilica and palace, *Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte*, Trier 1922, 8th ed. 357; (the most recent edition prepared by F. PANGERL was not available to us).

[^330]: ZOEPFFEL, *Papstwahlen* 254-255; MARTENS speaks more correctly: "Only through inthronization, which presents itself as the taking possession of the Petrine cathedra, did the nominees receive the fullness of papal jurisdiction". *ZKR* 5, 478. GRAUERT says that the effect of inthronization is the same as that of introduction, which is indeed false in itself, but stems only from the false supposition that introduction was the form of institution. The juridical condition is correctly conceived. *Hist. Jahrb.* 1, 554 n. 1.

[^331]: *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 1, 31.

[^332]: TH. KLAUSER, *Die Cathedra im Totenkult der heidnischen und christlichen Antike* Münster 1927 (Liturgiegeschichtl. Forschungen 9) 11, 179, 182, 183.

[^333]: KLAUSER l. c. 181; *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 1, 49-51.

[^334]: "And when he (the dying Peter) had said these things, he placed his hands upon me in the midst of all present, and compelled me, weighed down with great reverence, to sit in his chair." PG. 1, 471 D. Cf. KLAUSER l. c. 181.

[^335]: *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2601-2602 (DE PUNIET). Today a newly consecrated bishop is enthroned after the completion of the consecration Mass, ascending, if the consecration has been performed in his own church, the episcopal throne, or if in another church, the faldstool of the consecrator. Cf. *Pontificale Romanum*, in the edition of the year 1888 I 88. Examples for the East in FORCELLINI under *inthronizare*. The development in the West, however, took its beginning in Gaul.

[^336]: The high seat.

[^337]: H. BRUNNER, *Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte* II Leipzig 1892, 16.

[^338]: Ibidem 18 et n. 24.

[^339]: Enthronement "...is precisely a constitutional act of taking possession of the throne." BRUNNER l. c. 19. (The unction and coronation of the king arose only in the Carolingian period. Ibidem 19-20; The most recent dissertation on this matter written by P. Schramm, ZRG Kanon. Abt. 1934, became known only after our study was already completed and we were unable to use it).

[^340]: Ed. DUEMMLER, *Gesta Berengarii* 142-143.

[^341]: Ed. DUEMMLER, *Auxilius und Vulgarius* 96.

[^342]: Ibidem 99.

[^343]: Ibidem 105.

[^344]: Ibidem 101. Other examples are cited by DU CANGE (ed. Favre) under the word "inthronizatio." The use of the word "inthronizare" is therefore not as rare as ZOEPFFEL believes. Cf. *Papstwahlen* 260 n. 112 a.

[^345]: GRAUERT also says that the matter later called enthronement already existed in reality in the ninth century. *Hist. Jahrb.* I 554 n. 1. Cf. also DE PUNIET in *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2601.

[^346]: Cf. chap. II p. 98.

[^347]: EBERS 175.

[^348]: DEUSDEDIT ed. Wolf-Glanvel 241; ANSELMUS LUCENSIS ed. Thaner 290; Polycarpus in Latin codex 3882 fol. 16 v of the National Library of Paris, in which last source, probably due to a scribal error, "archbishop" appears in place of "archpresbyter."

[^349]: Cf. KLAUSER, *Cathedra*, Special chapter on the origin of the feast of the Chair of St. Peter; P. GLAUE in *Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte* 50, Stuttgart 1931, 462.

[^350]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne I 471.

[^351]: The same work, II 71-72.

[^352]: The same work, II 142.

[^353]: The same work, II 142.

[^354]: The same work, II 140.

[^355]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 152.

[^356]: The same work, II 152.

[^357]: FABRE, *Book of Censuses* I 311 b.

[^358]: Cf. the texts cited in the eighth chapter.

[^359]: Thus ZOEPFFEL, *Papal Elections* 248-249; MARTENS *Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht* 5, 178. BURDACH II 1, 409; GRAUERT, *Historical Yearbook* 4, 554 n. 1.

[^360]: ZOEPFFEL same work 254-255.

[^361]: The same work 258; CASPAR, *Register of Gregory VII*, 2 n. 1.

[^362]: KLAUSER, *Cathedra*.

[^363]: *Letter* X, *to Antonianus* Patrologia Latina 3. 797 A.

[^364]: *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne I 260.

[^365]: The same work I 363.

[^366]: The same work I 372.

[^367]: The same work I 463.

[^368]: "... unless we wish to give weight to a marginal note from the ninth century, which I found in a codex of the Hieronymian Martyrology, which added the following interlinear words to the memory of the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter in Chains at the beginning of August: *cathedra s. Petri ad vincula* [the chair of St. Peter in chains]. Whatever may be the value of this marginal note...". DE ROSSI, *The Chair of St. Peter in the Vatican and That of the Ostrian Cemetery, Bulletin of Christian Archaeology* V, 1867, 39.

[^369]: Concerning this very chair, cf. among the earlier authorities ONUPHRIUS PANVINIUS [Onofrio Panvinio], Vat. lat. 7010, fol. 159 v-160; PASTOR, XIV 1, 215, 515-519; *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 84-90. In this last work you also have a catalog of opinions set forth with their supporting arguments.

[^370]: L. c. 33-48.

[^371]: *The Catholic Encyclopedia* III 554.

[^372]: *Roma Sotterranea*, Freiburg 1879 (2nd ed.), 568-577.

[^373]: TIBERIUS ALPHARANUS [Tiberio Alfarano], *Concerning the Most Ancient and New Structure of the Vatican Basilica, Studies and Texts* 26, Rome 1914, 41, n. 2.

[^374]: *Origins* 268-269 n. 3.

[^375]: According to a communication given orally.

[^376]: "... from the wall of the Basilica of Blessed Peter, on which there is an image..., and from the bronze door before Saint Petronilla up to the place where the chair of Blessed Peter is positioned." NERINIUS, *De templo et coenobio sanctorum Bonifacii et Alexii historica monumenta*. Rome 1752, 209; cf. FABRE-DUCHESNE, *Liber Censuum* II 162 b n. 42.

[^377]: *Opusculum* V, Actus Mediolani, De privilegio Romanae ecclesiae PL. 145, 89 BC.

[^378]: CERATTI 41 n. 2.

[^379]: It has also been said that papal enthronement takes its origin from the rite performed after Mass described in *Ordo* XXXVI. "Having entered into the sanctuary, he then sits upon the apostolic chair" v. EHSES 178; however, this seems to have little probability. The meaning appears to be: Then he is pontiff. Cf. DE PUNIET, *Dict. Arch. Lit.* III 2, 2601.

[^380]: "Whom neither would the Lateran chair recognize, nor would the Roman citizenry show him obedience." *Invectiva* cap. 7. MG. *De lite* III 103 (line 37).

[^381]: WATTERICH II 401.

[^382]: *Papstwahlen* 261. What he says concerning those tendencies of Gregory VII's system is already refuted by the fact that enthronement had already developed before the beginning of the Gregorian reform, as we have demonstrated.

[^383]: *Chronicle of Monte Cassino*, "... they lead him to the basilica called Saint Peter in Chains to conduct the election. There, following custom in making his vocation, they decree that Stephen... should be called; and thus, with the entire City following with praises, they led him to the Lateran patriarchate. On the following day at dawn, with all the cardinals together with the clergy and Roman people gathering before him, he is consecrated as supreme and universal pontiff at the basilica of blessed Peter with the immense joy of all." WATTERICH I 194, more briefly BONIZO, WATTERICH I 196-197.

[^384]: MANN confuses the introduction with the enthronement, VI 213; in the same manner he had already spoken of Leo IX "as he was already a bishop, he was solemnly presented with the pallium, and was duly enthroned in the Lateran." VI 44.

[^385]: The series of ceremonies employed does not depend on divergent accounts of Gregory's election; cf. CASPAR, *Studies on the Register of Gregory VII*, New Archive of the Society for Ancient German Historical Research 38, 1913, 203; FLICHE II 71-80. They report concerning that enthronement: BONIZO, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, *Concerning the Struggle* I 601; GREGORY himself in a letter to Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, CASPAR, *Register* 5; Boso WATTERICH I 308-309, DUCHESNE, *Liber Pontificalis* II 361. The testimony of Bonizo, even if of lesser importance for history, is of greater importance for us, because he wishes to present the matter as it ought to have been done. Cf. MARTENS, Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 6, 44 (161).

[^386]: MARTENS in the same place 51 (168).

[^387]: HUGO, *Chronicle* book II Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores VIII 424; cf. MARTENS in the same place 46-47 (163-164).

[^388]: L. DUCHESNE, *The Early Times of the Pontifical State*, 2nd ed. Paris 1904, 400-401 (The 1911 edition was not available to us).

[^389]: BONIZO book IX, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, *Concerning the Struggle* I 614. Nevertheless, it was irregular with regard to the quality of those ordaining or enthroning; cf. chapter nine.

[^390]: BERNOLDUS for the year 1087, WATTERICH I 558 n. 2; his *Life* by the authors LEO AND PETER OF MONTE CASSINO, WATTERICH I 562.

[^391]: *Chronica Montis Casinensis*, MG. SS. VII 761.

[^392]: Cardinal BOSO, DUCHESNE, *Lib. Pont.* II 389.

[^393]: *Lib. Pont.* l. c. II 313. The introduction of his predecessor, Paschal II, into the Lateran palace is considered by MARTENS, ZKR 7, 19-20 (262-263); this first installation in the see after election was then considered as an enthronement only if the chair of Peter was there in the sense we have explained. The rite is described in *Lib. Pont.* l. c. II 296-297.

[^394]: *Letter of the electors of Anacletus to Diego of Compostela*, WATTERICH II 189.

[^395]: *Gesta Innocentii* cap. 7, PL. 214, XX; ROGER OF WENDOVER, *Flores Historiarum*, MG. SS. XXVIII 40.

[^396]: POTTHAST, *Reg.* II 1653.

[^397]: *Lib. Pont.* l. c. II 327.

[^398]: POTTHAST, *Reg.* II 1826-1827.

[^399]: *Letter of the chapter of St. Peter*, WATTERICH II 475-476; JOHN OF SALISBURY, *to Ralph de Serris*, WATTERICH II 501; *Gesta Concilii Papiensis* MG. Constit. I 260-261, 265-270.

[^400]: BOSO, WATTERICH II 378-379.

[^401]: *Letter of Canon Bishop of Praeneste to H. Bishop of Nevers.* PL 163, 1438; BOSO, DUCHESNE, *Lib. Pont.* II 377; the pope himself speaks only of the visitation of the church of St. Peter and the conferral of holy orders, *letter to Wido Bishop of Chur*, WATTERICH II 141-142.

[^402]: *Life of Gregory IX* chap. 4, ed. Fabre-Duchesne, *Liber Censuum* II 19. However, the imposition of the pallium is commemorated as "the insignia of full power."

[^403]: POTTHAST, *Reg.* II 1704.

[^404]: Lucius III at Velletri, Urban IV at Verona, Gregory VIII at Ferrara, Clement III at Pisa, Innocent IV at Anagni, Urban IV at Viterbo, Clement IV at Perugia.

[^405]: The *Life of Gregory IX* l. c. speaks of being "enthroned" in the Lateran palace.

[^406]: Cf. PETRUS DAMIANUS, *Epistolae* I 20, PL. 144, 242 B ("according to the custom of the Roman Pontiff, a red cape"). Sentence XI *Dictatus Abrincensis* (Avranches) "He alone uses the red cape as a sign of empire or martyrdom," ed. S. Löwenfeld, *Der Dictatus Papae Gregors VII und eine Ueberarbeitung desselben im XII Jahrhundert*, NA. 16, 1890, 200; DANTE ALIGHIERI makes Nicholas III speak "Know that I was clothed with the great mantle," *Inferno* XIX 69; BURDACH II 1, 284-285.

[^407]: FABRE-DUCHESNE, *Liber Cens.* I 311 b; MABILLON, Mus. Ital. II 222.

[^408]: BORCHLING, *Rechtssymbolik* 243.

[^409]: Cf. the appendix in the book by ZOEPFFEL, *Papstwahlen* concerning that election; *Gesta Con. Papiensis* l. c. n. 398.

[^410]: Cf. the text cited in n. 282 with the text of PETRUS DAMIANUS Ep. I 20: "Now you have perhaps the miter, you have, according to the custom of the Roman Pontiff, the red cape"; PL. 144, 242 B. (The question mark in Zoeppfel, Grauert and Watterich is incorrect. Cf. Martens, ZKR 7, 78-80. Concerning Clement III see above page 24. Grauert speaks of the Immanation in Hist. Jahrb. I, 1880, 555-558.)

[^411]: In the *Ceremonial* of Gregory X, the pontiff is invested with the words: "I invest you with the Roman Papacy, that you may preside over the city and the world." MABILLON l. c. 222.

[^412]: For example, the master of ceremonies at the beginning of the 15th century, GUIDO DE BUSCO, says: "... I came summoned to the Roman curia on the same day and hour when the blessed and memorable lord Pope Innocent VII was enthroned in the chair of Saint Peter at Rome." Vat. lat. 12.348 fol. 164 v. Today, that enthronement should rather be recognized as consisting in the triple adoration of the pope by the cardinals after the election, LECTOR rightly says in *Le Conclave* 665 n. 1. However, we do not acknowledge the restoration of enthronement after exile. Cf. LECTOR l. c. 690. What he says elsewhere about enthronement has been partially rejected by our arguments.

[^413]: Among the older writers on the history of the papal crown, the following deserve to be cited: J. MARANGONUS, *Chronologia Romanorum Pontificum superstes in pariete australi basilicae sancti Pauli apostoli viae Ostiensis* [*Chronicle of the Roman Pontiffs surviving on the south wall of the basilica of Saint Paul the Apostle on the Ostian Way*], Rome 1751, 72-89; G. GARAMPI, *Illustrazione di un antico sigillo della Garfagnana* [*Illustration of an ancient seal of Garfagnana*], Rome 1759; A more recent monograph exists by E. MÜNTZ, *La Tiare pontificale du VIIIe au XVIe siècle* [*The Papal Tiara from the 8th to the 16th Century*], Mémoires de l'Institut National de France, Académie des Inscriptions et belles-lettres, 36, Paris 1898; it was also published separately, Paris 1897; J. BRAUN treats the matter more briefly in *Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient* [*Liturgical Vestments in the West and East*], Freiburg i. B. 1907, 496 and following; BURDACH II 1, 234 and following in the passages to be cited in their proper places. On the origin of the Triple Crown, GERHART LADNER wrote *Die Statue Bonifaz VIII in der Lateran-basilika und die Entstehung der dreifach gekrönten Tiara* [*The Statue of Boniface VIII in the Lateran Basilica and the Origin of the Triple-Crowned Tiara*], Römische Quartalschrift, 42, 1934, 35-69. See also note 339.

[^414]: *Lib. Pont.* [*Liber Pontificalis*] ed. Duchesne I 390.

[^415]: Concerning the camelaucum in the East, J. REISKE wrote in his edition of CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS THE EMPEROR, *On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court in Two Books*, Corpus of Byzantine Historical Writers II, Bonn 1830, 652-656. Concerning the head covering of the Prince of Priests among the Jewish people, cf. J. GABRIEL, *Studies on the Old Testament High Priesthood with Special Consideration of the High Priestly Ornaments*, Vienna 1933, Theological Studies of the Austrian Leo Society 33. Concerning the tiara in ancient times, cf. E. WUESCHER-BECCHI, *The Origin of the Papal Tiara (regnum) and the Episcopal Miter. Explained from Ancient Monuments*, Roman Quarterly 13, 1899, 77-108. See also the survey of the development of the pontifical tiara by P. M. BAUMGARTEN, *Tiara and Miter*, Highland II 2, 1904-05, 99-102. The pontiffs of Greek or Syrian origin were John V and VI, Sisinnius, John VII, Constantine, Gregory III, and Zacharias; cf. MÜNTZ 239.

[^416]: Hauck-Herzog presents a bibliography of the Donation of Constantine up to the 20th century in their *Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche*, under the entry *Konstantinische Schenkung*. Concerning the origin of the Donation, there are nearly as many opinions as there are writers. Of the most recent period and of greatest importance are W. Levison, *Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvesterlegende*, Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (Studi e Testi 38) II, Roma 1924, 159-247, who examines the relationship of the Donation to the legendary sources about Pope Sylvester; and G. Laehr, *Die Konstantinische Schenkung in der abendländischen Literatur des Mittelalters bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts*, Berlin 1926 (Historische Studien 166); idem, *Die Konstantinische Schenkung in der abendländischen Literatur des ausgehenden Mittelalters*, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 23, Roma 1931-1932, 120-181. M. Buchner promised a complete book on the Donation, whose material he briefly comprehended, particularly with respect to the place of origin, in the study *Rom oder Reims die Heimat des Constitutum Constantini. Eine Skizze*, Hist. Jahrbuch 53, 1933, 137-168. H. Brunner collected the older opinions concerning the time of origin in *Das Constitutum Constantini, Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist*, Berlin 1888, 23; there are two classes of opinions: one which thinks that the Donation originated in the second half of the 8th century, with great variety in assigning the exact time; the other which believes that it originated in the first half of the 9th century, which opinion, inaugurated by Grauert, is also defended by Buchner. The latter collected the opinions of more recent scholars in the aforementioned work, 137-139, 164, 166-167. The second opinion saw the purpose of the Donation in its relation to the foundation of the new empire. Grauert thinks it was to justify the foundation of the empire against the legal pretexts of the Byzantines; Buchner assigns a double purpose: the pontiff receives the crown of the west in order to transfer it to the emperor; but the translation and origin of the empire depend upon the disposition of the pontiff.

[^417]: Constitutum § 14, ed. K. Zeumer, *The Oldest Text of the Constitutum Constantini. Festschrift for R. v. Gneist*, Berlin 1888, 56.

[^418]: ZEUMER l. c. 57-58 (Constitutum § 16).

[^419]: LEVISON 244.

[^420]: BRAUN 488-489; R. ZOEPFFEL, *Up to Which Century Can the Ceremony of Papal Coronation Be Traced*, ZKR 13, 1876, 11-13.

[^421]: EBERS 178-179.

[^422]: Thus KOESTERS, *Studies* 34-38; SICKEL, in manuscript annotations on the order in the edition of Deusdedit's collection by MARTINUCCI (Venice 1869) in a copy preserved at the Austrian Historical Institute in Rome (505) states "probably Leo IX 1049."

[^423]: Cf. n. 53 and n. 151.

[^424]: Cf. Du CANGE under the word "camelaucum."

[^425]: Cf. P. SCHRAMM, *Studies on Early Medieval Records Concerning State and Constitution*, ZRG 62, Germ. Abt. 49, 1929, 214-215; E. EICHMANN, *The Adoption of the German King by the Pope*, ZRG Germ. Abt. 37, 1916, 301-309.

[^426]: P. SCHRAMM, *Kaiser, Rome and Renovatio* I 42-54.

[^427]: *Museo Italiano* II 92.

[^428]: *Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht* 13, 1876, 21-22.

[^429]: C. SERAFINI, *The Coins and Papal Lead Bulls of the Vatican Medal Collection*, I Milan 1910, plates V and VI.

[^430]: *To Henry IV* book VII 2, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores* XI 672.

[^431]: Thus MARTENS, cf. W. GIESEBRECHT, *History of the German Imperial Period* III 5, 3rd ed. Leipzig 1890, 1094; also MEYER VON KNONAU I 680-681; BRAUN, 504 n. 2. (Many reject the account of Benzo, because he seems to speak of a double crown; but even if this is not admitted, the substance remains concerning the introduction of one crown for the kingdom). They admit this: GIESEBRECHT l. c. 130, 362, 1093-1094; WUESCHER-BECCHI l. c. 106; MANN VI 242; C. SACHSSE, *Tiara and Miter of the Popes. Journal of Church History* 35, 1914, 494 (interpreting Benzo's passage about the single crown); A. HOFMEISTER in *Historical Journal* 114, 1915, 671-673; FLICHE 180; BURDACH 235 (cf. also *Supplement* 638); HOFMANN, *Dictatus Papae*, 46 n. 2. speaks more indeterminately; ZOEPPFEL thinks that the coronation of the 10th century was omitted and reintroduced by Hildebrand. *Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht* 13, 1876, 25-27.

[^432]: VII 2, *Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores* XI 672.

[^433]: Ibid.

[^434]: *Life by the author* BOSO, *Liber Pontificalis* ed. Duchesne II 282.

[^435]: Cf. e.g. the chapel of St. Sylvester in the basilica of the Four Crowned Martyrs; the phrygium with a crown placed above it is found in almost all images of pontiffs of the Middle Ages in manuscript codices. LADNER 52-54.

[^436]: In the 9th century the Constitutum was not applied in the same way as later. Cf. LAEHR, 14-16; concerning the new evaluation at the time of the Gregorian reform see BURDACH 234-235; LAEHR, 28-43.

[^437]: Proposition VIII states "That he alone may use imperial insignia," ed. CASPAR, *Register of Gregory VII* 204; the right to these imperial insignia is still understood by BURDACH and LAEHR as arising from the tendency to equate the pontiff with the emperor in all things; according to the most recent interpretations this is not entirely correct, since probably many propositions of the *Dictatus* were directed against the pride of the Byzantine patriarch or even the bishops of the West. Thus the purpose of Gregory VII's reform is better understood as primarily intended for the reform of the Church's internal affairs and the restoration of primatial dignity. Cf. R. KOEBNER, *The Dictatus Papae. Critical Contributions to the History of the Middle Ages. Festschrift for R. Holtzmann.* Hist. Studien 238, Berlin 1933, 64-92; and especially K. HOFMANN, *The Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII* 1933.

[^438]: Ed. Wolf-Glanvel 24.

[^439]: Ed. Thaner 206-210.

[^440]: *Decretum* V 49, PL. 161, 341; *Panormia* IV 1, PL. 161, 1181-1182.

[^441]: This is Order XI of Mabillon. The catalogue is found in *Mus. Ital.* II 153. Benedict also presents a description of several feasts of the crown. Cf. the more recent edition in FABRE-DUCHESNE, *Liber Censuum* II 145 a-137 a, 152 a-154 b.

[^442]: Cf. FABRE-DUCHESNE, *Liber Censuum*, I 290 b-292 b, 299 a.

[^443]: Cf. MÜNTZ, *La tiare pontificale*; BRAUN l. c. He treats the same matter more briefly in *The Catholic Encyclopedia* XIV 714-715.

[^444]: This is the opinion which G. LADNER expounds and defends with many arguments drawn especially from the history of art.

[^445]: *Encyclical of Urban II* ed. P. Kehr, Two pontifical documents illustrating the history of Rome in the final years of the eleventh century. *Archivio della R. Società Romana di storia patria* 23, 1900, 277-278.

[^446]: *Lib. Pont.* ed. Duchesne II 297.

[^447]: Ibidem II 314.

[^448]: Ibidem II 322.

[^449]: *To the Bishop of Nevers*, PL. 163, 1438.

[^450]: The pontiff states in letter 176: "And indeed the crown of the Phrygians has been placed upon our head," ed. U. Robert, *Bullaire du pape Calixte II* Paris 1891; (Mann has already corrected the false punctuation VIII 161 n. 3). Uodalscalcus (*Concerning Egino and Herimann*) describes the entry of Calixtus and says concerning the kingdom: "Then crowned, so that you might believe the church is adorned with royal priesthood." WATTERICH II 138.

[^451]: Cf. Pius X, *Vacante Sede Apostolica* VII 91.

[^452]: Sermon on the feast of Saint Sylvester PL. 217, 481; cf. also the sermon on the consecration of the pontiff, ibidem 217, 665. BURDACH II 1, 256.