Latest news with #Ghibellines
Herald Malaysia
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
How locking cardinals in a room became known as a conclave
Electing a Pope wasn't always the formal, ruled-based conclave we are familiar with today. Everything changed in 1271 after a papal election lasted almost three years. May 07, 2025 Cardinals gather in Rome for the conclave of 1978, which elected Karol Wojty?a ROME: Rome has not always been the seat of power for the papacy. For two notable periods of Church history, Popes lived outside of Rome and served as the successor of St. Peter away from the Eternal City. You may have heard of the Avignon Papacy – a period of 68 years in the 14th century when pontiffs resided in Avignon, France following a conflict between the papacy and the French monarch. But, perhaps a lesser-known and potentially more significant period was the brief time a small city just 90 minutes north of Rome became not only the residence of nine Popes, but also the birthplace of the conclave as we know it today. But why was this city of Viterbo even an option as a seat of papal power? Just 90 miles north of Rome Rome in the 13th century was very different to what we see today. It was filled with violence and division. Two families – the Guelphs and the Ghibellines – ruled and were battling over who had the authority to appoint bishops and abbots. One believed the secular ruler had the power, while the other defended papal authority. As a result, the city of Rome had been overwhelmed with conflict. It was ruled unsafe and Pope Alexander IV chose to transfer the papal see to Viterbo. The small city held a number of advantages: its proximity to Rome, its ties to the Guelph family, and its two-and-a-half-mile circular wall. For Christians, Viterbo was significant because it is located along the important pilgrimage route called the Via Francigena. With all these strengths, in 1257, Rome was abandoned as the residence of the Popes and Viterbo was adopted. How to elect a Pope…back in the day For 24 years – from 1257 to 1281 – the Palace of the Popes in Viterbo was the residence of the pontiffs. It was here that nine men were chosen to be head of the Catholic Church. However, until 1268, the election process was much different from today's, which is much more clearly-defined and thorough. Historians and canonists generally hold that until the 13th century, the papal role was filled like any other diocese, meaning the election of a new Pope was made by neighboring bishops, clergy, and the faithful of Rome. Others argue it was not until the 4th century after Pope Sylvester I that the lay people were included in part of the election process. Sometimes, European emperors and monarchs nominated a successor. Nevertheless, the idea of the conclave had not been formed until the death of Pope Clement IV, marking a drastic change in how pontiffs were elected. Lock them in until they decide In 1268, the Church was facing a sede vacante (a vacant see) and the election of a new Pope. At that point, 19 of the 20 cardinal electors traveled to Viterbo to take part in choosing a successor. Little did anyone know, this election would become the longest conclave in Church history. After a year without a new Pope being chosen, the citizens of Viterbo took matters into their own hands. In an attempt to pressure the cardinals to make a decision, they, together with the captain of the people, Raniero Gatti, locked the cardinals in the Palace of the Popes with a key or 'cum clave', in Latin from which the word conclave is derived. The cardinals, locked in from the outside, were also limited to bread and water. Finally, in September of 1271, after more than three years without a pontiff, Pope Gregory X was elected. Lessons learned Following the experience in Viterbo, some of the cardinals realized that the long and unofficial process of electing Popes was outdated. The recently elected pontiff, Gregory X, published an Apostolic Constitution, Ubi periculum , with concrete rules for the selection of a new Pope. This apostolic constitution remains the basis for the modern-day process the Church still uses today. Even with the publication of these new rules, the new process was not adopted immediately. It was not until Pope Boniface VIII named the Ubi periculum as the only means of electing a Pope by incorporating it into canon law. With that, Viterbo – also called the City of Popes and the location of the longest papal election in history – became the birthplace of the conclave.--Vatican News
India Today
07-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
The longest papal election in Church history lasted 1,006 days, from 1268 to 1271
Few rituals in the world are as steeped in secrecy and tradition as the election of a pope. While modern conclaves unfold beneath Michelangelo's frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, the roots of this process stretch back through centuries of power struggles, political intrigue, and human drama. Cinema may have recently captured a glimpse of this in Conclave , but long before the silver screen dramatised the event, the Catholic Church had already experienced conclaves that changed history. One of the most extraordinary began in 1268, in the small Italian town of Viterbo, after the death of Pope Clement IV. What should have been a solemn and swift vote turned into a political standoff that lasted nearly three years -- 1,006 days, from 1268 to 1271, the longest conclave in papal history. SISTINE CHAPEL 'S FIRST CONCLAVE Over time, conclaves found a permanent home. The Sistine Chapel hosted its first in 1492 -- the same year Alexander VI, a Spaniard, was elected. Since 1878, the chapel has been the fixed setting for this ancient process. Cardinals now sleep nearby at the Domus Santa Marta residence, away from the world, disconnected from media, until white smoke signals the decision. Cardinal Camerlengo certifying a papal death (Image: Wikimedia Commons) Not all popes have been cardinals. Urban VI, elected in 1378, was a monk and the archbishop of Bari -- and remains the last non-cardinal to ascend to the papacy. Age, too, has varied. Pope John XII was just 18 when elected in 955. Celestine III and Celestine V were both nearly 85 when they took the mantle. EVOLUTION OF PAPAL CONCLAVE OVER CENTURIES The papal conclave that we witness now -- veiled in mystery and seriousness -- took centuries to develop. Popes in the early Church were elected by regional clergy and laity, frequently by acclamation instead of an official vote. This resulted in controversy and opposing claimants, or antipopes. As the struggle for power increased, the laity's role diminished. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II restricted voting to cardinals, and by 1179, all cardinals had an equal voice. But still, elections dragged on, particularly in the 13th century, because of politics and travel delays. The limit of 70 cardinals established in 1587 was later increased to provide broader worldwide representation. The Church formalised the process over time. By 1917, canon law mandated that cardinals be priests, and since 1962, they have mostly been bishops. In 1970, Pope Paul VI implemented another major reform: cardinals older than 80 could no longer vote -- simplifying the process while keeping centuries of tradition. LOCKED DOORS, NO ROOF, AND A POPE CHOSEN AT LAST The deadlock was fuelled by a fierce rivalry between two dominant factions of the time: the Guelphs, who supported the authority of the pope, and the Ghibellines, who aligned with the Holy Roman Emperor. As weeks turned into years, the people of Viterbo grew fed up. The cardinals, holed up in the Episcopal Palace, seemed unwilling to compromise. In a rare act of civic defiance, the townspeople locked them in -- and even removed the palace roof to pressure them into action. From this chaos came the term conclave , derived from the Latin cum clave , meaning 'with a key' -- referring to the cardinals being locked in until they reached a decision. The 1492 papal conclave was the first to be held in the Sistine Chapel. (Image: Wikimedia Commons) Finally, in September 1271, a committee of six cardinals broke the impasse. Their surprise choice was Teobaldo Visconti, an Italian cleric on a diplomatic mission in the Holy Land. He returned home to become Pope Gregory X. The experience forced Gregory to introduce reforms. In 1274, he decreed that if the cardinals couldn't agree on a pope within three days, their meals would be reduced to one a day. After eight days, they'd get only bread, water, and wine -- a stern reminder that indecision had consequences. The history of papal elections also reflects how wide the Church's reach has become. While the majority of popes have historically been Italian, the 20th and 21st centuries have seen more diversity. The conclave remains a moment when history meets mystery -- a mix of prayer, politics, and pressure. It is, at heart, a very human affair, shaped by conflict, compromise, and, occasionally, roofs being torn off.
Telegraph
13-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Feuds are futile: just ask Elton John and Madonna
Guelphs and Ghibellines, Montagues and Capulets, Sir Elton John and Madonna… In drama and poetry, feuds tend to reach a Shakespearean conclusion that involves corpses all over the stage, or a Dantesque vision of quarrelsome fellow citizens literally and metaphorically gnawing at each other. In celebrity-land, however, the proper culmination of a lengthy feud is a big old hug-and-make-up. So it was last week, with Sir Elton, resplendent in white samite, clasping Madge in a forgiving embrace – both of them looking straight to camera, rather than at each other. The discord seems to have started in the early 2000s when Elton accused Madonna of lip-syncing and dissed her theme song for the 2002 Bond film, Die Another Day, suggesting that the studio could have hired Lulu or Shirley Bassey instead ('or maybe I'm in that league'). It was downhill all the way from there, with harsh criticisms from Sir Elton's side met with haughty rejoinders by Madonna's people, who announced that she didn't 'spend her time trashing other artists'. Their reconciliation may have looked a touch performative, but it did at least contain a spark of the genuine respect felt by one considerable talent for another. The recent 'rapprochement' of Meghan Markle (sorry, Sussex) and Gwyneth Paltrow, perhaps not so much. The origins of the alleged falling-out between the grandes dames of Montecito seem obscure. Perhaps Gwyneth's remark to Vanity Fair magazine, that she didn't 'know [Meghan] at all. Maybe I'll try to get through their security detail and bring them a pie' didn't go down well. All good now, though: Gwyneth's recent Instagram video scotching the rumours featured a vignette of Meghan eating pie in a manner possibly intended to suggest irony. What exactly constitutes a feud? The OED defines it as 'a state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility'. Mere schoolyard invective – as in Elon Musk's recent description of President Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, as 'dumber than a sack of bricks' – doesn't constitute a feud (although it might start one). 'Everyone knows how futile a feud is,' wrote the poet and novelist Michael Crummey. 'How ridiculous and useless and nearly impossible to resist. A feud is as primal and irrational as falling in love, which is why there's no talking to people involved in one.' It is a thought that must occasionally have occurred to the mother of the fractious Gallagher brothers. But all passion has a tendency to cool over time, and participants in even the most bellicose feuds often find themselves, like hostile versions of the deluded lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream, waking from their enchantment of loathing and settling their once irreconcilable differences with an awkward exchange of courtesies. (Admittedly, when Salman Rushdie and John le Carré eventually concluded their feud with just such a relapse into good manners, the Puckish provocateur Christopher Hitchens was disappointed: 'One's job… when seeing the embers begin to cool, is to blow on them as hard as possible.') But hatred is costly to sustain. Like love, you have to work at it. But unlike love it withers rather than nourishes the spirit. Better, like Madonna, Sir Elton and the grumpy Gallaghers, to hug awkwardly and consider a harmonious collaboration. Bad review The snappily titled Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act recently passed into law. Fake reviews will be banned, which is certainly a good thing. But the ubiquitous demand that we rate every purchase and experience has increased to the point of absurdity and beyond. The sinister potential of reviews inspired 'Nosedive', the 2016 episode of Black Mirror in which a young woman's life falls apart as her personal ratings drop. Frank Skinner's Radio 4 comedy series, One Person Found This Helpful, takes a less dystopian approach, but still underlines the surreal aspect of reviewing every banal feature of our lives. I recently bought some cats' litter tray liners, and I have since been relentlessly pursued with demands to review them. My failure to comment on the cat's sanitary arrangements has provoked a blizzard of reminders and unsolicited emails, to the point at which, in sheer self-defence, I'm tempted to post a review after all: porous.
