Talk:Papal selection before 1059

renamed Pornocracy
The use of "pornocracy" is misleading to modern people, who associate it with pornography, not prostitutes. It was a silly, derogatory term since it is acknowledged that the women concerned were not prostitutes. One suspects it was chosen by celibate men who had taken a particular view of all females.

In any case, the term adds little value to the section. Saeculum obscurum is a better term, and of more historical relevance, but to avoid dispute I have included both. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have left them both in the text. However, saeculum obscurum refers only to the period. This article is about the historical methods of papal selection. The term pornocracy describes the method of papal selection (i.e. installed by Theodora and Marozia), even if it may seem quaint to modern readers and invite quibbles such as the above. With both of the terms included and explained in the text I see little damage to using the term that actually relates to the subject matter of the article in the header. Savidan 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What a funny little article
Do any of the editors of this article know any history? Or am I wrong in assuming that the purpose of this article is to instruct its readers in history? Just asking. Rwflammang (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine vs Frankish & HRE
The Eastern emperors appointed their bishops. What happened when the bishop of Rome turned to the west in 752 and 800? I know that the Holy Roman Emperor appointed the bishops, leading to the Investiture Controversy. This practice must have come from the fact that the Eastern emperors could appoint their bishops. When Charlemagne was crowned emperor, did he also inherit the ability to appoint bishops? If so, why would he worry about the fact that the pope crowned him (carefully designating himself as being "crowned by God" instead of "crowned by the pope")? I mean, the conclave wasn't the practice until somewhere in the eleventh century? Does anyone know what I'm saying? I don't think the article is very clarifying. Also, my earlier comment about the use of only one source is weird. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See papal appointment for further information. Savidan 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Byzantine appointment"
This section is incoherent where not positively self-contradictory. On the face of it, "Byzantine appointment (537-752)" ought to mean that all or most of the popes during this period were appointed to office by the emperor – just as the patriarchs of Constantinople were. The first pope of this series is Vigilius (537-555); the seond is Pelagius I (556-561); and the third is John III (561-574). The article goes so far as to assert that (1) Vigilius was "installed" by Justinian, (2) there was a "sham election" for Pelagius, and (3) Justinian was content merely to "approve" John's election. It is then said that Justinian's successors "continue[d] this practice for over a century". This "practice", of course, being the requirement that popes-elect should receive imperial approbation (iussio) before they were consecrated bishop. Initially this iussio was sought from the emperor in Constantinople himself, but as a result of delays caused by successive crises on the eastern borders of the empire, the grant of iussio was delegated to the exarch at Ravenna as from the election of Honorius I (625-638): see Ekonomou, p.43

The article, however, persists in speaking of "appointment" during this period when it is clear there was no such practice at all and that even iussio was abandoned as early as 684 (see below). The most that can be said is that the elections of Viigilius and Pelagius I were engineered by imperial intrigue. As to the former, the article Pope Vigilius - which condescends to give no reference although the source is The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) - describes various intrigues surrounding his election before judiciously commenting "Much in these accusations against Vigilius appears to be exaggerated, but the manner of his elevation to the See of Rome was not regular."

There is no evidence even within the section itself for the statement in the lede that any pope (let alone most or all) was "appointed" by the emperor. The reference to the "legend" of Gregory's appeal to Constantinople proves the exact opposite of what is claimed for it: what it "proves" is not that popes were appointed by the emperor, but that they were elected in Rome, subject to formal approval (the iussio). It would appear that emperors abandoned their claimed prerogative of approbation of popes-elect, as from the election of Benedict II (684-685): see Ekonomou, p.215 ("Constantine IV removed the requirement of imperial approval as a precondition to the consecration of a pope"). During the period 537-752, moreover, at least two popes did not wait for the iussio: Pelagius II (579-590) and Martin I (649-655). The arrest of the latter was not a response to his flouting the need for iussio, but to his summoning of the Lateran Council in 649 and his refusal to accept the monothelite doctrine promoted in Constantinople: see Duffy, p.76. By 711, the emperors ceased to exercise any effective power in Italy and by 729 the Lombards were besieging Rome, with the exarch powerless to assist.

This rather elementary confusion is perpetuated in various other places in wikipedia – most notably in the use of the misleading and tendentious term "Byzantine Papacy" which, I venture to say, is absent from the literature and, so far as it pretends to include the reign of Gregory the Great, is grossly inapposite. It is permissible to speak of "Byzantine Rome" during the comparatively precarious and discontinuous periods when the emperor exercised military and administrative control over it, and it is even permissible to speak - as Duffy does at pp.72-86 in a passage with this very title - of a kind of "Byzantine Captivity" of the papacy (analogous to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews) during the first half of the 7th c. when the requirement for the iussio was generally observed, but "Byzantine Papacy" smacks of WP:OR. The manifest fact of a tight succession of Greek-speaking popes, as well in the twilight years of Byzantine power in Italy as after its extinction (687-752), is a natural development - perceptible from as early as Theodore I (642-649) - arising from a change in the ethnic composition of the Roman clergy and not at all the consequence of supposititious "appointments" by the emperor. Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done to correct this error. Ridiculus mus (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have cited reliable, scholarly, secondary sources for everything currently said in that section.  I cannot be responsible for what the Wikipedia article about a given pope might say (most such articles are quite bad).  Moreover, this is one area where the Catholic encyclopedia is well-known to be deficient:  its editors either showed no interest in, or sought to downplay, the historical involvement of the secular powers in papal selection.  See caveats in Catholic Encyclopedia topics.  I do agree with you that "appointment" may fit better for the first few popes of the period, than it does for the later ones.  I think the term is broad enough to encompass confirmation, etc., but would be open to changing the title.  I would also be open to you adding whatever sourced, reliable content you think appropriate.  Savidan 16:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for "Byzantine Papacy," I think your charge of original research misses the mark. See Google Books and Google Scholar.  If you wish to suggest a move of that page, there are adequate procedures to do so.  Unless and until consensus is reached for such a move, it makes no sense to challenge the use of the term in satellite articles.  Not an overwhelming amount of hits, but enough that claims of "original research" won't do.  After that I think you just have to look to the relevant Wikipedia policies favoring brevity, etc for titles.  Savidan 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument that the section is self-contradictory does not turn on the content of Pope Vigilius, and I cannot accept that "confirmation" is comprehended by "appointment". The lede will have to be corrected and I shall turn to it in due course when I have established the extent of this error in other articles.  I see no evidence that the emperor appointed a single pope in the sense that he appointed the patriarchs of Constantinople, and nothing in the section (beyond the lede) indicates as much.  As for "Byzantine Papacy" the googlebooks search appears (I have not checked every item) to prove my point:  leaving aside the scrappy pieces cobbled together from wiki-articles, only Meyendorff (an Orthodox theologian) supports the phrase and I have no idea to what extent he qualifies it.  The citation from Norman Baynes' book is not à-propos because it refers to an attempt by Cerularius to establish a "Byzantine Papacy" in Constantinople to rival Rome's (that, of course, is the obvious presumption as to what such a phrase might mean).  The same goes for "The Christ Conspiracy" by S. Acharya where the phrase also refers to an eastern papacy to rival Rome's.  The reference in Speculum n° 47 pointedly puts the term in quotation marks.  The fact is that none of the sources cited in the wiki-article use the term, and (when read with the blatant error as to popes being "appointed" by emperors) it is seriously misleading. Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The two links I provided included over 30 sources. Unless you have similar points to make in response to all the others, the point about original research remains unchanged.  Nor do I share your view that an author is not credible because they are not a Catholic.  Savidan 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Kindly read what I wrote before criticising it.  I did 'not say Meyendorf was not a credible source - he is a major source, but he is the only credible source on this point that I have seen and may have qualified his usage.  The bulk of the 30 or so "sources" in the links you provided are derived from various wiki-articles (including this one) so are not independent.  Once again, none of the cited sources in the wiki-article support the use of this misleading term.Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once you have one reliable, published source the original research concern is a non-issue. Thereafter, it's just about choosing between the various possible titles.  And that choice is influenced by more than a straw poll of the literature; the best title for a Wikipedia article may not necessarily be the one with the most google hits, etc.  Remember that these sources are not writing an encyclopedia article, and thus do not directly speak to what the best title is.  This article only has two sources at the moment.  Your claim is misleading with respect to both.  Ekonomou does not use any one term for this period; as his entire book is on the topic, he has no need to.  I do not think you are seriously proposing using the term "Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes" instead.  Baumgartner focuses on papal election/selection over the 2000 year span, and thus devotes only limited space to the period of the Byzantine Papacy.  I do not think you can claim that he prefers a different term either.  Thus, neither of these sources militate against the term.  Also, which sources that I linked to derive from Wikipedia? I see what you're saying about a few of those reproducing Wikipedia; I agree that we need not consider those.  Savidan 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My claim as to what is misleading? None of the cited sources uses the term "Byzantine Papacy", that's a fact.  In his chapter 2, Duffy speaks of "Byzantine Captivity" (as I mentioned above).  That seems to me a bit overblown, but it's a fair enough working title.  Justinian (or his wife) tried to meddle in papal elections after the reconquest, but it back-fired.  After that we have the iussio in which the emperor became progressively less interested, eventually delegating it to the exarch and then abandoning it altogether in 684 when a new era opens with popular elections. On this basis, "Byzantine Captivity" is an acceptable description of the level of imperial supervision of papal elections, but the time-frame must be cut down to end in 684 not 752. The Greek popes phenomenon has nothing to do with Constantinople or imperial involvement. Ridiculus mus (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no purpose in discussing this further here. If you object to the term "Byzantine Papacy" then go to that article and use WP:RM. Savidan 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened in 684?
The article currently reads:-"The next seven popes were more agreeable to Constantinople, and approved without delay, but Pope Benedict II was impelled to wait a year in 684, whereafter the emperor consented to delegate the approval to the exarch of Ravenna, the ruler of the Byzantine district including the Duchy of Rome.[9] During the pontificate of Pope Benedict II (684-685), Constantine IV waived the requirement of imperial approval for consecration as pope, recognizing the sea change in the demographics of the city and its clergy.[10]"

"impelled"?, "whereafter"?, "Byzantine district"? The iussio was delegated to the exarch in 684, the same year that the emperor abandoned its exercise altogether? This is another glimpse of the manifest incongruities and self-contradictions in an ineptly written article, the correction of the multitudinous defects in which progresses with the ease of drawing teeth without anaesthetic. A reasonable objection to the word "appointment" for describing the supervisory role of the emperor produced only a squabble and the unconvincing claim that the two terms are equivalent. Tell any student of the US Constitution that the Senate appoints Justices to the Supreme Court and note the reaction. So in Talk it appears there is a stalemate on this issue, but quietly the word "appointment" is deleted by the very person who thinks "appointment" and "confirmation" are equivalent - but in only one place in the section, however, thus compounding the confusion. I am experiencing a total lack of cooperation and even of minimal courtesy when discussing corrections in here. My comments are misread and misrepresented, and the generally bullying tone adopted by the counter-party leaves me disgusted since it is evident there will be more stone-walling, obfuscation and obstruction. Anyone who makes the journey from the article to the discussion page will at least know that more than one editor can see the article suffers from serious problems. If Savidan had not published his disinclination to read comments on his talk page I would have taken my criticisms there, so I do not want to hear from him that remarks relating to his editing skills, his low threshold for accepting criticism, and his unsocial behaviour have no place on this page. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me for only responding to your substantive comments. "Impelled" just means "forced"; either this was the term the source used, or I used a thesaurus.  "whereafter" refers to the selection of the next pope(s).  "Byzantine district" is not an unreasonable way of defining the exarchate of Ravenna, which is linked.  What happened in 684 was the election of Benedict II, the notable facet of which is that he was forced to wait a year between election and approval. Savidan 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The schism after the death of Paul I
In the section "Frankish influence" the article erroneously states that Toto of Nepi had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned, and that Pope Stephen III subsequently made an edict restricting the eligibility for Papal selections. Furthermore, the text can easily be misconstrued to believe that Toto had himself declared Pope. I corrected these errors, replacing them with the facts: 1. Toto had his brother Constantine, not himself, declared Pope. 2. Constantine, not Toto, was the one who had his eyes gouged out and was imprisoned. 3. The restrictions for eligibility were provided by the Lateran Council of 769, not by a decree from Stephen III. My edit contained hyperlinks to sourced articles stating the facts, and if that were insufficient, I should gladly source the content directly in this article. I expressed no POV; my edit was perfectly neutral. So I am at a loss as to why @Veverve reverted it. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * you changed this information without stating whether what you wrote followed the source. And the new wording seemed pro-Catholic, thus I inferred that this was a POV-push from you. Veverve (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Veverve Can you be more specific about what the problem with my wording was? Perhaps I can rephrase it. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does your claim align with what the source says or not? Veverve (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, your reason for reverting my edit was an alleged breach of NPOV. Since you have failed to specify in what way I violated that policy, I am going to restore my edit.
 * As far as sourcing goes, the paragraph as it stood before my edit (and again after your reversion) was very sparsely sourced. There was a reference to page 13 in a 2003 work by Baumgartner that was inserted here and there in the paragraph, and I must admit that I don't know what it says in that book. All I know is that what the paragraph said was factually wrong (and contradicting all of the Wikipedia articles dealing in more detail with the topics that are briefly touched upon in this paragraph, so if you insist that my edit was wrong, you have a lot of correcting to do!)
 * Anyway, if the problem was that I did not delete the reference to Baumgartner, I shall be more than happy to do so. And like I wrote in my original comment, I shall gladly insert references to the sources used in the articles on Pope Stephen III, Antipope Constantine II, Toto of Nepi and Lateran Council (769).
 * Now, if after this you still have objections to my edit, please raise them here on the talk page instead of just reverting. Thank you. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revised my wording and added citations from Horace Mann and Encyclopedia Britannica. I hope this is satisfactory. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you.
 * Since you have failed to specify in what way I violated that policy: I did, re-read my message.
 * Baumgartner is recent and reliable, so his information is to be kept, instead of using sources that are one century old. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You merely stated that my wording "seemed pro-Catholic". That is not very specific.
 * About the sourcing, let me repeat that the content of this article is at odds with the Wikipedia articles dealing inmore depth with the topic, AND with the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also, this present article is already flagged for relying on a single source. I wish you would engage in a more constructive dialogue instead of just reverting every edit I make. Anyway, I have now requested a third opinion. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the previous and current wording for me?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Lee Vilenski! Thank you for engaging! The current wording is the original one, before I made the edit that @Veverve reversed. A comparison between my wording and the original/current one can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papal_selection_before_1059&diff=1155089554&oldid=1155043179 Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I have managed to find a recent scholarly article on the topic, authored by Rosamond McKitterick and titled "The Damnatio Memoriae of Pope Constantine II (767– 768)". It is included as Chapter 16 in the 2018 book "Italy and Early Medieval Europe: Papers for Chris Wickham" from Oxford University Press, so I should believe that it satisfies all the requirements anyone could have of a source.
 * McKitterick certainly cannot be accused of pushing a pro-Catholic agenda, as the main point of her article is that Constantine II was not an "antipope" as he has been labeled in Catholic tradition, but that from a neutral perspective he must be considered a fully legitimate pope. But that only serves to emphasize my point that he should be mentioned in the article. Also, McKitterick writes extensively on the Roman synod of 769 (which, as I have mentioned, has its own Wikipedia article called "Lateran Council (769)". If you object to calling it that, we can simply call it a synod and pipeline the link to the main article. However, if you have objections to the title of that article, that objection should be made on the talk page of that article.
 * See below for my proposal for a wording which aligns with McKitterick's article. (Whether or not Toto has his eyes gouged out is of little relevance to the topic of this article, so I have simply left that question out). Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After the death of Stephen II's brother and successor Pope Paul I, a Roman aristocratic faction led by Toto, dux of Nepi, entered Rome and elected Toto's brother Constantine, then allegedly a layman, as pope. Another Roman noble faction headed by the primicerius Christopher and his son Sergius contested the election, and with the aid of the Lombard king Desiderius they had Constantine imprisoned and Stephen III elected in his place. Constantine and his main supporters subsequently had their eyes gouged out. Stephen III then proceeded to convene a synod of 39 Frankish and Italian bishops, which decided that ‘no layman should ever presume to be promoted to the sacred honour of the ponticate, nor even anyone in orders, unless he had risen through the separate grades and had been made cardinal deacon or priest’ (that is, within Rome). Nikolaj1905 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections, I have inserted the above paragraph into the article. Please take any future objections to this talk page rather than simply reverting my edit. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello i've came from the WP:3O noticeboard, i wanted to help resolve the dispute.
 * Nikolaj1905 - you've seemed to claim that Toto didn't have his eyes removed but instead Constantine, from what i can see you're reason for these changes is to remain consistent with other Wikis, for starters Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so the issue of consistency is not much of a issue regarding materials, i also noticed on one of your edits here you added Horace Mann's book, which is unreliable, typically in Wikipedia more modern sources are preferred since ones written more then 100 years ago are bound to get materials and stuff wrong, but the encyclopedia Britanica is actually reliable so it should be cited (if it's related to the situation)
 * Veverve - you believe or atleast claim that Toto was the one who lost his eyes, for starters make sure to assume good faith to your editors, they might not be a catholic POV and its somewhat rude to label them as such
 * I believe the best way both of you can reach any agreement is with compromise, this is my proposed re-write of the disputed section:
 * The death of Stephen II's brother and successor Pope Paul I was followed by a bloody schism characterized by Toto of Nepi and Pope Stephen III; The story of Toto losing his eyes has remained disputed by historians, some suggest that he was the one who lost his eye, while others have supported the claim that Constantine, which was Toto's brother was actually the one who lost his eyes
 * This way the reader can decide for themselves in what theory to believe in, this compromise will also prevent further disputes in the future
 * If you feel my compromise is not a good idea, don't be afraid to discuss an alternative compromise, i hope this suggest helps out in resolving your dispute. Gurther (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gurther, thank you for your input! It's very much appreciated!
 * My main concern was not whether or not Toto had his eyes gouged out; it was the lack of mention of Constantine, since it was him, not Toto, who was the actual claimant to the Papacy (even if Toto was possibly the instigator), as well as the attribution of the rulings of the Lateran Council of 769 to an edict by Stephen III. (I wonder, by the way, if it was my insistance on the role of that council that caused @Veverve to question my neutrality? I can't think about what else it might have been - and for what it's worth, I'm a Protestant myself).
 * @Gurther, is Mann known as a particularly unreliable source, or it it merely the date of his book that makes you (and @Veverve) consider him unreliable? I don't claim to be an expert on 8th century church history, so I can't rule out that new discoveries may have caused the scholars to move away from what Mann states - but since Encyclopaedia Britannica seemed to go along with what he wrote, I didn't consider that possibility likely. As far as Baumgartner is concerned, his work is obviously more recent than Mann's, but it is also much more cursory; all the information on the 768 schism having been derived from a single page, and for that reason I would consider Mann a better source, despite his book being much older, because it is much more in-depth.
 * (And you are of course both right that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this is an overview article, so it ought to agree with the more detailed articles. My point was merely that if indeed Mann is an unreliable source, then it is not enough to reverse my edit to this present article, but the detailed articles whould be challenged as well). (I should add, by the way, that I erred in stating that all the detailed articles are sourced, because the one on Toto is not - but it contains no information that cannot also be found in the sourced articles on Constantine and Stephen III, respectively).
 * Finally, about the proposed compromise: It is absolutely fine by me to have this article state that the scholars are in disagreement about what happened to Toto, but I do think that Constantine should feature at least as prominently as his brother, and that the Lateran Council of 769 should be mentioned. The latter may also include a compromise wording, stating that the scholars are divided on whether the ruling was made by the council or by a Papal edict (though I suspect that Baumgartner was not disagreeing with Mann and the Britannica, but merely simplifying things due to the brevity of his work).
 * Again, thank you, @Gurther, for pointing to a way out of the stalemate! Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder, by the way, if it was my insistance on the role of that council that caused @Veverve to question my neutrality?: yes, it is.
 * The story of Toto losing his eyes has remained disputed by historians etc.: do we have a reliable source which states this? Veverve (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that clear. I still think it is a non sequitur, though. Baumgartner's book is very cursory: He devotes only 18 pages to a millennium of papal selection, so his silence on the Lateran Council of 769 cannot be taken as evidence that the council did not take place.
 * However, since you will not accept Horace Mann nor the Encyclopaedia Britannica as reliable sources, I have now ordered two very recent books on the topic by Chris Wickham and Rosamond McKitterick, respectively. I am looking forward to seeing what they have to say. If they both disagree with Mann, I shall rest my case. If not, I shall propose a new wording here on the talk page, which I hope you will accept. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)