At that time, I believe the pope had less of a role in appointing new bishops since the travel time would have been so onerous. Also, I think this incident is where we got the term “conclave”, Latin for “with key”, since the townspeople of Rome finally got fed up and locked the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel until they elected a pope.
Someplace I read that the conclave participants were restricted to bread and water after a certain period of time, if they had not reached a decision. If that didn’t work, the roofing was removed to hurry them along. Forget where I read that, but think it was true.
My guess would be Christ unless their Apostolic Succession was somehow broken. I’m saying this as some schismatic churches had/have valid bishops and priests though they obviously didn’t/don’t get their jurisdiction from the Pope.
The Bishop of Rome (Pope) did not appoint other Bishops at this time as has now become the common practice in the Catholic Church. So, as always, they got their jurisdiction from Christ ultimately.
So it would be like supplied jurisdiction?
Hence, seeing as the vast majority of the modern Church is Latin, it is only fitting that the areas that come under Latin jurisdiction should have their bishops appointed by the Pope, who is the Patriarch of the West (and All the Americas - I think he should add that title.- the American Orthodox would be hopping mad).
Not really. Supplied jurisdiction occurs, for example, when a laicized priest sees a dying person and hears their confession. The priest had had his jurisdiction removed, but needed it in this one instance. In this era, however, the neighbouring bishops (perhaps specifically the metropolitan archbishop) had ordinary jurisdiction to appoint and ordain a new bishop.
According to Pope Benedict, no longer Patriarch of the West.The Church, because of the difficulty of travel and the impossibility of one man knowing all of the inner workings of each particular church, had these rules:
So, as you can see, Rome oversaw the appointment of bishops in Western Europe, but also Northern Africa I believe. Alexandria oversaw Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, and the rest of Africa. Jerusalem oversaw what is roughly modern-day Palestine, and Antioch oversaw Asia Minor, Eastern Europe, Syria, and all the east. Of course, the Church grew so rapidly eastward that minor metropolitans were created out of necessity, like the Catholocoi of Armenia and India, although these were subject to the oversight of Antioch.
- Bishops were elected by the other nearby bishops, and ordained by them (to maintain Apostolic Succession)
- The bishops of the metropolises could either approve or reject the man chosen
Hence, seeing as the vast majority of the modern Church is Latin, it is only fitting that the areas that come under Latin jurisdiction should have their bishops appointed by the Pope, who is the Patriarch of the West (and All the Americas - I think he should add that title.
Where do those canons come from that you’re quoting? Thanks.The Church, because of the difficulty of travel and the impossibility of one man knowing all of the inner workings of each particular church, had these rules:
So, as you can see, Rome oversaw the appointment of bishops in Western Europe, but also Northern Africa I believe. Alexandria oversaw Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, and the rest of Africa. Jerusalem oversaw what is roughly modern-day Palestine, and Antioch oversaw Asia Minor, Eastern Europe, Syria, and all the east. Of course, the Church grew so rapidly eastward that minor metropolitans were created out of necessity, like the Catholocoi of Armenia and India, although these were subject to the oversight of Antioch.
- Bishops were elected by the other nearby bishops, and ordained by them (to maintain Apostolic Succession)
- The bishops of the metropolises could either approve or reject the man chosen
Hence, seeing as the vast majority of the modern Church is Latin, it is only fitting that the areas that come under Latin jurisdiction should have their bishops appointed by the Pope, who is the Patriarch of the West (and All the Americas - I think he should add that title.
He no longer specifically claims the title, but it doesn’t stop it from being so.
The First Council of Nicæa, AD 325.
It’s not just that he no longer specifically claims the title, personally, but rather that the Church no longer sees fit to use it as a title. Whether it’s “so” or not is kind of moot then.