Alexander VI's Election to the Papacy

Catholic Analysis ^ | 16 October 2014 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

[This is part of Catholic Analysis' special series on Pope Alexander VI. This part, the fourth, details Alexander's election and coronation. Read the third part.]

The conclave of 1492 was an awesome, if typical, affair.

After the death of Pope Innocent VIII, the primary contenders to succeed him quickly became obvious: Rodrigo Borgia, Ascanio Sforza, and Giuliano della Rovere (who later became Pope Julius II). [1]

Rodrigo was the obvious choice, a man of high honors and popularity. However, that he was Spanish, and therefore seen as an outsider, was likely a point of considerable contention. Ascanio, the Italian and scion of the powerful House of Sforza, had an establishment look and was probably thought a safe choice, but he was somewhat lackluster – he was the moderate candidate. Giuliano, meanwhile, had the backing of the French, who were most powerful allies at the time.

From the start, Rodrigo appeared to be in the lead, and after only a few ballots, he was elected, likely by a unanimous vote – excepting, possibly, the vote of Giuliano. [2] The Florentine ambassador's report of the election confirms this. [3]

While allegations of simony in this conclave still circulate today, there is no legitimate basis for them. "The wealth needed to buy the votes of so many rich and supposedly hostile men to tempt them to elect a Spanish Pope against their inclinations would have been far beyond even Rodrigo's means". [4] Had such been decisive, Giuliano, surely, would have been elected.

In fact, Bernardino de Carvajal, a Spaniard and friend of Rodrigo, delivered a speech before the Sacred College in which he laid out vices found within the Church and exhorted the cardinals to choose a pontiff who would restore Her virtue. He pleaded, "The whole Church has [H]er eyes upon you, Excellent Fathers; give [H]er a Pontiff who may draw after him to salvation all [C]hristian nations, through the very odor of his good name." [5]

It must be noted that, had Rodrigo been as horrible as usually alleged, this speech would have absolutely precluded him from the high office.

Upon his election, Rodrigo took the name of Alexander, after Pope Alexander III (who dared to confront the inimical Frederick Barbarossa) and likely after the indomitable Alexander the Great, becoming Pope Alexander VI. "There were murmurings that the new pope wanted to make his pontificate a universal reign where all nations would be subject to him, as would the heavenly powers, through the power Christ had granted St. Peter to bind and unbind all things on earth and in heaven." [6]

(Alexander chose to be referred to as the sixth so that he would not be confused with anti-pope Alexander V.)

The people loved him. After his election, "the greatest honor was done to him throughout the city by the Roman people with triumphal arches and with more than there was ever done to other [p]opes." [7] He was crowned in "a ceremony of unprecedented grandeur", where more than 800 notable leaders came to pay him homage, and he was showered with compliments – in an above-and-beyond fashion – by many ambassadors. Here, he gave a special greeting to our rabbinical brethren. [8] At the pope's instruction, the celebrations were also uplifting: a Eucharistic procession was to be the focus of the event, countless coins were thrown into the crowd, and all of his revenues were donated. [9]

Sung at the coronation was, "Hic est sacerdos Alexander quem coronavit Dominus. Alleluia." (This is the priest, Alexander, whom the Lord has crowned. Alleluia.) [10]

Alexander's pontificate was here entrusted to the Mother of God, also. [11]

—

Follow me and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.

—

References:

1. Christopher Hibbert, The Borgias and their Enemies, p. 37

2. Br. J.B. Darcy, CFC, What you don't know about the Borgia Pope: Alexander VI (1492-1503) (Catholic Insight)

3. Christopher Hibbert, The Borgias and their Enemies, p. 38

4. Michael de la Bedoyere, The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 87

5. Msgr. Peter de Roo, Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives, and His Time, Vol. 2, p. 308-313

6. Ivan Cloulas (translated by Gilda Roberts), The Borgias, p. 67-68

7. Johann Burchard (edited by Dr. F. L. Glaser), Pope Alexander VI and His Court, p. 53

8. Michael de la Bedoyere, The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, p. 91 (Quote: "Hebrews, we admire and respect your Holy Law since it was given your ancestors by the most High God through the hands of Moses. But we are opposed to the false observance and interpretation you have of it, because the Apostolic Faith teaches that the Redeemer whom you await in vain has already come, and that he is Our Lord Jesus Christ who with the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Everlasting God.")

9. Ivan Cloulas (translated by Gilda Roberts), The Borgias, p. 69, 71

10. Stuart Robb, To Begin, Continue and Complete: Music in the Wider Context of Artistic Patronage by Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) and the Hymn Cycle of CS 15, p. 43

11. Stuart Robb, To Begin, Continue and Complete, p. 45 (Quote: Pronoscemus hilari, protegens Virgo, intuitu ut que felix investitus per curiam terminet annos, te favente, certos. Talis enim, Virginum gemma, dignus est honoris.)

—

Papal Regalia/Insignia [from James Kohn's A Blasphemabitur Reformator (A Maligned Reformer)]

[Alex Murphy]

While allegations of simony in this conclave still circulate today, there is no legitimate basis for them. "The wealth needed to buy the votes of so many rich and supposedly hostile men to tempt them to elect a Spanish Pope against their inclinations would have been far beyond even Rodrigo's means". Had such been decisive, Giuliano, surely, would have been elected. In fact, Bernardino de Carvajal, a Spaniard and friend of Rodrigo, delivered a speech before the Sacred College in which he laid out vices found within the Church and exhorted the cardinals to choose a pontiff who would restore Her virtue. He pleaded, "The whole Church has [H]er eyes upon you, Excellent Fathers; give [H]er a Pontiff who may draw after him to salvation all [C]hristian nations, through the very odor of his good name"....

....The people loved him. After his election, "the greatest honor was done to him throughout the city by the Roman people with triumphal arches and with more than there was ever done to other [p]opes." He was crowned in "a ceremony of unprecedented grandeur", where more than 800 notable leaders came to pay him homage, and he was showered with compliments – in an above-and-beyond fashion – by many ambassadors. Here, he gave a special greeting to our rabbinical brethren. At the pope's instruction, the celebrations were also uplifting: a Eucharistic procession was to be the focus of the event, countless coins were thrown into the crowd, and all of his revenues were donated. Sung at the coronation was, "Hic est sacerdos Alexander quem coronavit Dominus. Alleluia." (This is the priest, Alexander, whom the Lord has crowned. Alleluia.)

Luther, a monk, breaks his vow of chastity = bad.
Rodrigo Borgia, a priest / bishop / cardinal, breaks his vow of chastity with multiple women, fathers seven illegitimate children, and still rises to the papacy = good.

Got it.

[matthewrobertolson]

vladimir998 addressed your silly retorts on my previous thread.

[Gamecock]

I think Alex has a point.

Anything Catholic good. Anything Protestant bad.
Popes behaving badly is better than any pious Protestant.

[livius]

Alexander VI was actually a very good Pope during a very difficult period (on an international level, all the European kings were at each other’s throats and the Muslims were either attacking or threatening to do so). He was responsible for what little peace there was during those complicated times, and also for many of the steps taken in the Spanish colonization of the New World. He was excellent in his treatment of the Jews, and he also did a tremendous amount for the patrimony of European art and culture with the works he carried out in Rome.

He was an intelligent and learned man, but also a man of action. His personal life actually seems to have been overall very good, although one of his problems was that many members of his noble family (not clergy, for the most part, but simply nobility married to other nobility, like Lucrezia Borgia) were also in Rome and some of them were very involved in the intrigues and corrupt noble lifestyle of the times. He was hated by some influential clerics because he tried to reform the Curia and it is thought that a lot of the evil reputation actually came from these people, particularly from his successor, Julius II, who was from a rival band of Italians, hated Spaniards, and wanted to do everything possible to blacken the name of Alexander VI.

[SpirituTuo]

I don’t see any mention of Protestants in the article. Why are you (plural) bringing them up?

What I read was an article about a person, who was elected pope. Like others, I have read the accusations of immorality, but haven’t read any contrary accounts.

I don’t see how this article is anything but informational about the subject. Am I wrong?

[vladimir998]

“vladimir998 addressed your silly retorts on my previous thread.”

I sure did. Alex wrote:

“Rodrigo Borgia, a priest / bishop / cardinal, breaks his vow of chastity with multiple women, fathers numerous illegitimate children by all of them, and still rises to the papacy = good.”

And I simply asked: “Who is saying that other than you?”

I knew I would not get a reply because no one is saying what Alex is claiming they are saying.

[vladimir998]

“I think Alex has a point.”

Nope.

“Anything Catholic good. Anything Protestant bad.”

Are Protestants even mentioned in the article?

“Popes behaving badly is better than any pious Protestant.”

So Luther violating his oath is pious? But Alexander violating his is “behaving badly”? Actually, they’re the same. Both men did what was wrong. You’re the one claiming a difference. We aren’t. I have heard Catholics say that Luther was apparently a devoted husband and father. And that seems to be the case. That doesn’t mean he was right to violate his oath. No one is applying a different standard to Alexander by saying the same of him. It’s the same standard. They both violated oaths.

[matthewrobertolson]

Exactly, livius! And those things will all be touched on in this series! :)