Talk:1099 papal election

"substitute for the Cardinal Bishop of Sabina"

The following statement is made in the article: "The election was attended by five of the six cardinal-bishops and one bishop, who acted as a substitute for the Cardinal-bishop of Sabina." The sentence is unreferenced.

(1) Does "acted as a substitute" mean that the Bishop of Nepi was delegated by someone to cast a vote on behalf of a vacant See? I know of no example of such an occurance in the history of papal elections. Neither is there an example of a proxy being given or accepted at any time. The rule has always been, and still is, that if an elector is not present at the electoral meeting, then he has no vote. If there were some appointment of Nepi as an elector, it must be referenced.

(2) To my knowledge, the bishop of Nepi is not mentioned in the documentary evidence in connection with the election of Cardinal Rainerius, only as a co-consecrator at the consecration of Rainerius as a bishop. He did not have to be a cardinal to do that, nor did he have to be an elector.

(3) Speaking of the diocese of Sabina, the succeeding sentence states: "This office was vacant from 1094 years, and the territory of the Diocese of Sabina supporters controlled the antipope Clement III." The sentence is unreferenced. In that five year period up to his death in 1099, Urban II could have appointed a bishop. But he did not, and his reason is not recorded. The right to participate in a papal election did not belong to the diocese; it belonged to the bishop. If there were no bishop, and that was sometimes the case, the papal election proceeded notwithstanding. It sometimes happened that a diocese was occupied by a hostile power (e.g. the emperor, the king of Sicily), but that had no effect on who was entitled to participate.

These sentences look (to me) like personal pleading or individual scholarship. In any case, they do not conform to WP policies.

Vicedomino (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)