Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to 1730 conclave.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
1730 conclave
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| Papal conclave March–July 1730 | |
|---|---|
| Dates and location | |
| 5 March – 12 July 1730 Apostolic Palace, Papal States | |
| Key officials | |
| Dean | Francesco Pignatelli |
| Sub-dean | Francesco Barberini |
| Camerlengo | Annibale Albani |
| Protopriest | Giuseppe Renato Imperiali |
| Protodeacon |
|
| Election | |
| Vetoed | Giuseppe Renato Imperiali |
| Elected pope | |
| Lorenzo Corsini Name taken: Clement XII | |
 | |
The 1730 papal conclave was called upon the death of Pope Benedict XIII. It began on 5 March 1730 and ended on 12 July that year with the election of Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini as Pope Clement XII.
Background
[edit]Pope Benedict XIII died on February 21, 1730, at the age of eighty-one. The conclave which followed is considered to be the longest and most corrupt of the 18th century.[1] The conclave opened on March 5 with thirty cardinals, but the numbers increased as more began to arrive. None of the Portuguese Cardinals were in attendance, apparently due to friction between Rome and Lisbon. There were fifty-six cardinals present. At some point in the four-month long ordeal, at least half of them had been proposed as candidates for election.
Factions
[edit]One voting bloc was made up of twelve cardinals who had been appointed by Benedict XIII, but this group had no clear leader. A second group was made up of cardinals appointed by Pope Alexander VIII. Politically, they were allied with the French party, which represented the interests of Louis XV.
The Imperial party were all subjects of the Holy Roman Emperor. This group included Cardinal Gianantonio Davia, a former papal nuncio to Vienna under salary from the imperial court. The Spanish party suffered from internal dissension, but was broadly allied with the Emperor.
There were also a Savoyard contingent representing Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, King of Sardinia; and the zelanti, who opposed all secular interference. In addition, the Florentine House of Medici was using financial enticements to forward their candidate, Lorenzo Corsini.
None of the factions were sufficiently large enough to bring a successful vote for their respective candidates.
Political influence
[edit]From about 1600 to the early 20th century, certain Catholic monarchs claimed the jus exclusivae (right of exclusion), i.e. to veto a candidate for the papacy, exercised through a crown-cardinal. By an informal convention, each state claiming the veto was allowed to exercise the right once per conclave. Therefore, a crown-cardinal did not announce the veto until the last moment when the candidate in question seemed likely to get elected.[2] This conclave saw a good deal of maneuvering by the various parties to induce another to exercise the veto prematurely.[3] At one point, in lieu of a veto, the Spanish party threatened to exit the conclave if a particular opposition candidate was likely to be chosen.
Cardinal Cornelio Bentivoglio presented the veto of King Philip V of Spain against the election of Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali.[4][5][6] During the conclave of 1700 Imperiali was part of a group of cardinals who were trying to resist the pressure applied by foreign governments aiming to influence papal elections. In 1720 he had attempted to influence the Republic of Genoa to arrest Cardinal Giulio Alberoni, an erstwhile court favorite made a duke and grandee of Spain. However, the veto had been signed by the Spanish Secretary of State rather than the King and was subject to a challenge. Matters dragged on while a messenger was sent to Madrid to obtain verification.[citation needed]
The Emperor had sent notification of his opposition to Cardinal Pietro Marcellino Corradini, who appeared to be leading with thirty votes. Corradini had opposed the Emperor's attempts at interference in the Papal States, and his attempt to name Hugh Francis von Fürstenberg as bishop of Hildesheim.[7]
By the middle of May there was a series of earthquakes in Italy. The tension was high, both inside and outside the Conclave, as many interpreted the earthquakes as evidence of God's displeasure at the failure of the Cardinals to elect a Pope.[3]
Results
[edit]Eventually Cardinal Cienfuegos persuaded the Germans to accept Corsini as an alternative to Corradini. The Spanish and French factions agreed. After months of contention, on July 12, 1730, Corsini was chosen and took the name of his patron, Clement XI. He was seventy-eight years of age at the time of his election and would rule for nearly ten years.[1] One of Clement's first actions was to create a commission to investigate charges of embezzlement by various officials under his predecessor.[3]
References
[edit]- ^ a b "Pope Clement XII", Papal Artifacts
- ^ Sägmüller, Johannes Baptist. "Right of Exclusion." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 11 June 2016
- ^ a b c Adams, John Paul. "Sede Vacante 1730", California State University at Northridge
- ^ Petruccelli della Gattina, Ferdinando (1866). Histoire diplomatique des conclaves (in French). Brussels: A. Lacrois, Verboeckhoven & Co. p. 68. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
- ^ Zanelli, A. (1890). "Il conclave per l'elezione di Clemente XII". Archivio della Società romana di storia patria (in Italian). Vol. XIII. pp. 24–5. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
- ^ "The Veto Pronounced at Conclaves". The Pall Mall Budget. 21 December 1877. p. 8. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
- ^ Abbenda, Charles Louis. "Life and Works of Cardinal Pietro Marcellino Corradini", Setino, November 12, 2011
Sources
[edit]- Ludwig von Pastor : History of the Popes. T. 34. St. Louis: 1941. ( ang. )
- Remigius Ritzler: Hierarchy Catholica. T. VI. Padova 1958. ( Lat. )
- Ferdinando Petruccelli della Gattina: Histoire diplomatique des conclaves. T. 4. Brussels: 1864 ( fr. )
1730 conclave
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Historical Context
Death of Benedict XIII and Sede Vacante
Pope Benedict XIII, born Pietro Francesco Orsini, died on 21 February 1730 at the age of 81 from natural causes, including complications from gout and advanced age, while presiding over administrative duties in the Vatican.[3][4] His pontificate, marked by efforts to reform the Roman Curia and address Jansenist controversies, ended without unresolved crises directly precipitating the sede vacante, though his decentralized governance style had left the papal bureaucracy somewhat disorganized.[5] Upon confirmation of the pope's death, the College of Cardinals declared the Holy See vacant (sede vacante), triggering standard protocols for transitional administration. Cardinal Annibale Albani, serving as Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, immediately took charge of the Vatican's temporal affairs, including sealing the papal apartments to prevent access to sensitive documents and inventories of the Apostolic Chamber's assets.[6] Albani also dispatched couriers to notify absent cardinals worldwide of the vacancy and summon them to Rome for the impending conclave, while the Sacred College governed spiritually through collective decisions.[2] The pope's body underwent traditional funeral rites, including public exposition in St. Peter's Basilica, followed by the nine-day period of mourning known as the novendiales, which concluded on 2 March 1730. During this interregnum, no major ecclesiastical functions beyond routine administration occurred, adhering to canon law restrictions on sede vacante activities. The conclave was formally convoked and opened on 5 March 1730 in the Sistine Chapel, with 26 cardinals initially present out of approximately 65 eligible electors.[6][2]State of the Papal States and Catholic Church
Under Benedict XIII (r. 1724–1730), a Dominican friar whose ascetic focus prioritized preaching and moral reforms over governance, the Papal States grappled with mounting fiscal pressures from decentralized administration and policy missteps. The pope delegated effective control to Cardinal Niccolò Coscia, his secretary, whose tenure was marred by allegations of embezzlement and nepotism, contributing to inefficient revenue collection and rising debts serviced through the monti di pietà system of public borrowing.[7] Benedict's prohibition of the state lottery in 1726, intended to curb gambling, inadvertently redirected lucrative funds to adjacent principalities, further straining papal coffers amid stagnant agricultural output and limited trade in the fragmented territories.[8] Efforts at administrative centralization faltered, as the pope's preference for Dominican-led moral oversight clashed with entrenched local baronial privileges and curial inertia, leaving the states vulnerable to fiscal insolvency by 1730. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction remained a flashpoint with absolutist Catholic monarchies, who increasingly invoked regalian rights—claims to temporal control over church properties, revenues, and appointments within their realms. In Spain, Philip V's Bourbon regime aggressively enforced these prerogatives, seizing vacant benefices and taxing clerical incomes to fund military campaigns, thereby eroding papal immunity and prompting diplomatic protests from Rome.[9] Comparable frictions arose in the Kingdom of Naples, under Austrian Habsburg rule until 1734, where viceroys contested papal oversight of diocesan elections and tithes, viewing them as encroachments on royal sovereignty and exacerbating border disputes with the Papal States. These conflicts underscored a broader shift toward state absolutism, limiting the Church's fiscal autonomy and diplomatic leverage as monarchs prioritized national interests over ultramontane authority. Within the Church, simmering divisions pitted reformists seeking to eradicate curial corruption—such as simony and absenteeism among officials—against traditionalists wary of disruptive changes that might weaken hierarchical stability. Benedict's Dominican sympathies amplified tensions with the Society of Jesus, whose expansive missionary networks and intellectual dominance in education fueled perceptions of overreach and doctrinal laxity among rivals, though outright schism was averted.[10] These fissures, rooted in competing visions of ecclesiastical purity versus pragmatic influence, heightened institutional fragility, as fiscal woes and external pressures demanded a pontiff capable of reconciling reform with fiscal prudence to avert deeper paralysis.[11]Internal Dynamics
Factions in the College of Cardinals
The College of Cardinals entering the 1730 conclave comprised approximately 55 participants out of 67 eligible electors, fragmented into competing factions defined by regional origins, familial networks, and stances on curial reform versus traditional privileges, with no group holding a commanding majority of the required two-thirds (approximately 37 votes). This internal division, rooted in lingering animosities from the 1721 and 1724 conclaves—where alliances had shifted amid disputes over papal nepotism and administrative control—fostered shifting coalitions and protracted bargaining, ultimately prolonging the assembly over 130 days.[6] Prominent among these was the zelanti faction, Italian reform-oriented cardinals emphasizing ecclesiastical autonomy and moral renewal within the curia, often drawing from independent or anti-nepotistic lineages skeptical of entrenched family patronage. Guided informally by senior figures like Cardinal Francesco Barberini, the dean of the college and a descendant of the Barberini papal dynasty, the zelanti prioritized candidates committed to curial efficiency over those beholden to aristocratic or foreign-aligned kin networks.[6] Complementing this were crown-cardinal groupings aligned with Habsburg Austria or Bourbon Spain, reflecting appointments under popes sympathetic to those powers and perpetuating rivalries over influence in Italian ecclesiastical appointments. The pro-Austrian contingent, including networks tied to the Albani family—such as Cardinal Alessandro Albani—inclined toward conservative fiscal policies and Habsburg diplomatic ties, while the pro-Spanish group, linked to figures from prior Orsini or Imperiali circles, favored Bourbon-oriented patronage in the Papal States.[6] Smaller familial clusters, such as the Corsini kin group focused on Tuscan commercial interests, and remnants of Ottoboni-led moderates, exerted leverage through personal loyalties and historical cardinal-nephew roles from earlier pontificates, though Benedict XIII's nephews commanded diminished sway post his death due to scandals over administrative mismanagement. These micro-factions, lacking independent heft, frequently realigned with larger blocs via private negotiations in the conclave's cells, underscoring the absence of rigid ideological divides and the prevalence of pragmatic deal-making amid shared Italian cardinal dominance (over 80% of participants). Factions were generally small and fluid.[6]Leading Candidates and Papabile
Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali, born in 1651 and aged 78 at the time of the conclave, was a prominent Genoese nobleman elevated to the cardinalate by Clement XI in 1706 after serving as nuncio to Portugal. His diplomatic background, including protection of Genoese interests, positioned him as a strong contender with ties to imperial factions, garnering substantial early ballots that reflected his perceived ability to navigate European courts. However, his candidacy faltered due to entrenched oppositions, including concerns over his age and potential favoritism toward certain powers, preventing the two-thirds majority despite peaks in support documented in contemporary records.[6] Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, also 78 years old and serving as Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati, represented a neutral, administrative papabile with decades in the Roman Curia, including roles in the Sacra Consulta and financial oversight that underscored his governance expertise. Lacking strong factional allegiance, his viability stemmed from compromise appeal amid deadlock, though contemporaries noted weaknesses like frail health and limited diplomatic flair, which delayed his consensus until later stages when ballot shifts favored non-partisan figures.[6] Among other key figures, Cardinal Fabio Olivieri, aged 72 and a veteran of prior conclaves, held the Diocese of Sabina and brought curial experience from secretariat roles, yet his moderate support highlighted factional splits that diluted votes for Italian traditionalists. Cardinal Juan Álvaro Cienfuegos Villazón, the 73-year-old Spanish Jesuit Archbishop of Monreale, leveraged Iberian backing for his theological acumen and missionary background, but his foreign origins and alignment with monarchical interests provoked resistance, capping his ballots short of viability as per archival accounts of shifting preferences. These candidates' failure to dominate early reflected deep divisions, with no one combining broad appeal and unassailable qualifications to overcome the required supermajority amid documented fluctuations in scrutiny-based voting.[12][6]External Influences
Monarchial Interventions and Jus Exclusivae
The jus exclusivae, an informal prerogative asserted by the Catholic monarchies of Spain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire, enabled these powers to veto papal candidates via instructions to their respective cardinal protectors before a decisive ballot, thereby influencing elections without formal canonical recognition.[13] This practice emerged from 16th-century secular encroachments on Italian affairs, evolving into explicit exclusions by the early 17th century, as when Spain claimed the right in the 1605 conclaves and successfully blocked candidates like Cardinal Sacchetti in 1644 and 1655.[13] Though popes repeatedly repudiated it—Gregory XV's 1621 bull Æterni Patris Filius prohibiting binding exclusions and later constitutions deeming it an abuse—the mechanism persisted, highlighting causal frictions where royal agents fragmented electoral consensus to safeguard national interests over ecclesiastical autonomy.[13] A pivotal 17th-century precedent occurred in the 1721 conclave, where the Holy Roman Emperor vetoed Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci, demonstrating the Empire's willingness to deploy the jus exclusivae to prevent perceived anti-imperial pontiffs and setting a model for subsequent interventions that prioritized dynastic alliances.[13] Such actions underscored the empirical reality of divided loyalties among cardinals, many elevated at monarchical behest, which empirically extended conclaves by sowing distrust and requiring iterative negotiations to bypass vetoed papabile.[13] In the 1730 conclave following Benedict XIII's death, these dynamics intensified: Spain adopted a more assertive posture by formally excluding Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali through its cardinal agent, reflecting Madrid's strategic aim to block pro-Austrian figures amid Bourbon-Habsburg rivalries.[13] Contrasting this, Austrian and French ambassadors emphasized persistent lobbying outside the conclave walls, pressuring cardinals via diplomatic channels to withhold support from mutually opposed candidates, which empirically splintered voting blocs and extended proceedings to among the longest of the century.[13][1] This fragmentation, driven by competing royal directives, illustrated the causal primacy of external prerogatives in eroding unified deliberation, as electors navigated veto threats to avoid invalidating their choices post-election.[13]Specific Vetoes and Diplomatic Pressures
Spain formally invoked the jus exclusivae against Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali through Cardinal Cornelio Bentivoglio, acting on instructions from King Philip V. On April 24, 1730, a courier delivered dispatches from Madrid to the Spanish ambassador, Marquis de Monteleone, authorizing the veto due to Imperiali's perceived alignment with Austrian interests, which conflicted with Spanish diplomatic priorities amid ongoing European rivalries.[6] This intervention occurred as Imperiali approached a near-majority in scrutiny, effectively halting his candidacy and illustrating the monarchs' capacity to disrupt internal cardinal deliberations via trusted proxies within the enclosure.[6][13] Austrian Emperor Charles VI exerted influence indirectly through Cardinal Álvaro Cienfuegos, a Viennese-aligned figure inside the conclave. On March 6, 1730, Cienfuegos announced the impending arrival of five German-party cardinals at the emperor's behest, urging delay to bolster pro-Habsburg voices.[6] By June 16, following explicit imperial directives, Cienfuegos opposed the election of Cardinal Pietro Marcellino Corradini—viewed as insufficiently favorable to Austrian positions—and advocated for Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini as a compromise acceptable to Vienna.[6] The emperor's extraordinary ambassador, Count Collalto, arrived in Rome on April 1 and coordinated from Cienfuegos's residence, facilitating discreet channels of pressure despite enclosure rules nominally barring external interference.[6] French pressures remained informal, with no authorized veto from King Louis XV, as confirmed by Cardinal Melchior de Polignac. French cardinals, initially hesitant to participate due to perceived inefficacy against combined Spanish-Austrian sway, aligned loosely with Spain against certain candidates, leveraging ambassadorial networks for subtle exclusions of those deemed too imperial-leaning.[6] On June 16, Bentivoglio echoed Spanish opposition to Corradini by threatening withdrawal from Rome alongside allies, amplifying collective Bourbon-Habsburg tensions into tangible leverage.[6] Secret communications persisted via intermediaries, such as Cardinal Giorgio Spinola's March 7 discussions with representatives of Camerlengo Annibale Albani to align on factional strategies, underscoring how envoys and auditors bypassed formal barriers to transmit monarchial directives.[6]Conclave Proceedings
Opening Sessions and Early Voting
The papal conclave of 1730 convened on 5 March in the Apostolic Palace, adhering to the procedural norms established by post-Tridentine constitutions, including the strict enclosure of participating cardinals to prevent external influence and the emission of black smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney to signal inconclusive ballots. Initially, thirty cardinals were present at the opening, with the assembly growing as additional electors arrived from distant locations; ultimately, fifty-six of the sixty-eight living cardinals took part in the proceedings.[14] The first scrutiny occurred on the afternoon of the opening day, following the oath of secrecy and the traditional litany, marking the commencement of secret balloting under the two-thirds majority requirement.[6] Early ballots revealed rigid factional divisions, with initial support coalescing around conservative candidates such as Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali, who garnered significant votes owing to his seniority and alignment with imperial interests. However, Imperiali's momentum stalled rapidly as he approached but fell one vote short of election, prompting the Spanish crown to invoke the jus exclusivae—a customary though non-binding veto—due to his perceived pro-Austrian leanings and age of 78, which raised concerns over his capacity to govern.[6][14] Complementary scrutiny votes on subsequent days highlighted splits among crown cardinals from Spain, France, and the Empire, alongside neutrals, preventing any candidate from securing the requisite supermajority and resulting in repeated black smoke signals that underscored the early deadlock.[6] Logistical hurdles compounded the procedural rigidity, as delayed arrivals of overseas cardinals extended the initial phase and disrupted voting rhythm, while the advanced age of many participants—exemplified by Imperiali and others—necessitated accommodations that slowed deliberations without formal interruptions. These factors, drawn from contemporary conclave diaries, illustrate how pre-existing alliances and monarchical pressures manifested immediately, forestalling consensus in the opening sessions.[14]Stalemate, Negotiations, and Shifting Alliances
The conclave devolved into a protracted stalemate following the initial sessions, as no candidate garnered the requisite two-thirds majority of 33 votes among the 49 participating cardinals, with balloting extending without resolution from early March into June 1730.[2] This deadlock stemmed from entrenched factional divisions, exacerbated by unresolved vetoes against prominent figures like Cardinal Niccolò Coscia, and prevented any swift consensus despite daily scrutinies. External pressures from Habsburg, Spanish, and French diplomats further rigidified positions, prompting cardinals to engage in discreet negotiations to avert indefinite prolongation. Shifting alliances emerged through rational compromises, with mediators such as Cardinal Alessandro Albani—known for his diplomatic acumen and prior service under Clement XI—playing a pivotal role in brokering discussions among rival groups.[15] Albani advocated for elderly, non-partisan figures to sidestep foreign impositions, gradually elevating Lorenzo Corsini, a 78-year-old Florentine cardinal with minimal factional baggage and a reputation for administrative competence, as a viable neutral option. These parleys involved pledges on ecclesiastical reforms and balanced foreign relations, reflecting cardinals' pragmatic assessments of geopolitical realities over ideological purity. Contemporary smuggled correspondence, including a letter penned by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini on May 3, 1730, and clandestinely conveyed from the conclave, attests to the intensity of internal deliberations amid the impasse.[16] Lambertini's missive, defying seclusion protocols at risk of severe penalties, highlights the cardinals' isolation and the covert channels used to sustain morale and external ties, while broader epistolary evidence from the period underscores debates on curial restructuring and avoidance of monarchical dominance in papal governance. Such documents reveal how alliances pivoted not on unwavering loyalties but on calculated concessions to break the cycle of futility.Final Ballots and Election of Clement XII
In the concluding ballots of the 1730 conclave, held in late June and early July, Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini emerged as the consensus choice amid persistent deadlock among leading papabile.[6] Support coalesced around Corsini due to his advanced age of 78 years and minimal alignment with the Imperial, French, or Spanish factions, positioning him as a neutral figure unlikely to pursue aggressive policies.[17] On July 12, 1730, during the morning scrutiny, Corsini received 52 votes from the 56 participating cardinals, surpassing the two-thirds majority threshold of approximately 38 votes required under conclave rules.[6] The scrutineers verified the ballots, and Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci, as senior cardinal deacon, formally proffered the tiara to Corsini, who accepted after brief deliberation and selected the pontifical name Clement XII. The election concluded the 129-day proceedings, with the Habemus Papam announcement delivered from the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica to the assembled crowds, confirming Corsini's unanimous acclamation in the final rite.[6]Outcomes and Legacy
Immediate Aftermath and Clement XII's Early Papacy
Clement XII, formerly Cardinal Lorenzo Corsini, accepted his election on July 12, 1730, following the resolution of factional deadlock in the conclave. He was crowned on July 16, 1730, in St. Peter's Basilica by Cardinal Protodeacon Lorenzo Altieri, marking the formal commencement of his pontificate.[18][19] In his initial months, Clement XII prioritized financial stabilization, demanding restitution from officials who had mismanaged funds under his predecessor Benedict XIII and addressing the substantial expenses incurred during the four-month conclave, which had strained papal resources.[20] On August 14, 1730, he convened his first consistory, elevating his nephew Neri Maria Corsini to the College of Cardinals in pectore—a decision published later that year—which served to consolidate familial influence while honoring the compromise nature of his election between imperial, zelanti, and crown factions.[21] European monarchs responded favorably to the new pope despite prior interventions; Spain, having exercised the jus exclusivae against opposed candidates, accepted Clement XII without reservation, as did France and the Empire, facilitating smooth diplomatic continuity.[20] These early steps underscored the conclave's negotiated outcome, with Clement XII issuing no major doctrinal bulls immediately but focusing on administrative prudence to avert curial discord.[22]Long-term Implications for Papal Elections
The 1730 conclave's duration of 130 days exemplified the challenges posed by factional fragmentation and external pressures, contributing to prolonged negotiations in subsequent elections such as the 1740 conclave, which extended to 180 days amid similar pro-Austrian and pro-French divisions.[23][6] This pattern of stalemate, driven by cardinals' cautious strategies under anonymous voting rules established by Gregory XV in 1621–1622, revealed persistent curial vulnerabilities to coordinated bloc voting and deceptive tactics, without prompting immediate structural overhauls.[23] Invocations of the jus exclusivae by Catholic powers reinforced the perceived legitimacy of monarchial vetoes among those states, sustaining the practice through the 18th and 19th centuries despite papal protests against its interference in ecclesiastical autonomy.[13] Popes, including those following elections marred by such exclusions, issued repudiations framing the veto as an illegitimate intrusion, yet practical acquiescence in cases like 1730 perpetuated its influence until Austria's final attempt in 1903, after which Pius X declared it obsolete.[13] The conclave's delays exposed the erosion of isolation protocols, with external agents exploiting porous communications to sway outcomes, fostering incremental refinements in enforcement—such as stricter conclavist restrictions—rather than wholesale electoral redesigns.[23] Scholarly analyses attribute this to the entrenched interplay of spiritual legitimacy and geopolitical interests, where prolonged vacancies heightened scrutiny on the College of Cardinals' independence but yielded no codified changes beyond reminders of existing bulls like In eligendis (1562).[23] Ultimately, these dynamics underscored a causal tension between curial autonomy and state pressures, shaping a resilient yet adaptable framework for future papal selections.References
- https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Papal_Coronation