Concerning Mr. Keating's Book: Move the Papacy?

[Tanais]

I was a bit curious about one of the things Mr. Keating said in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Although I am a huge fan of the book, one of the things he said in there struck my curiousity. Here is the quote:

At first glance, it might seem the question, whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. In a way it is. … On the other hand, even if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first Pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle there. (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 198)

Now, to me this seems to imply that the papacy could be moved, i.e. the Pope doesn’t necessarily have to stay as the bishop of Rome but move his see to somewhere else. Now, I am just curious is that possible or not and if not what does Mr. Keating mean in this statement?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Yes, the papacy can be moved. A case in point is the city of Avignon, France. The Catholic Encyclopdia has this to say about the town:

Avignon, which at the beginning of the fourteenth century was a town of no great importance, underwent a wonderful development during the residence there of nine popes, Clement V to Benedict XIII, inclusively.

I am not certain, however, if it would actually move the Holy See such that the popes were no longer bishops of Rome, or if the residency of the Bishop of Rome would simply be elsewhere.

 

[Tanais]

Dr. Colossus:

Yes, the papacy can be moved. A case in point is the city of Avignon, France. The Catholic Encyclopdia has this to say about the town:

I am aware of that, but I thought at that time the Pope was still the bishop of Rome, to me this was just a case of absenteism, a common occurence in the medeval church.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Tanais:

I am aware of that, but I thought at that time the Pope was still the bishop of Rome, to me this was just a case of absenteism, a common occurence in the medeval church.

I believe there was a serious schism in the Church at the time, where Rome and Avignon were used as residences by rival claimants to the Papacy, and was not resolved until 1417.

And I agree that the Papacy can be moved.

Gerry

 

[Sean_O_L]

I believe there was a serious schism in the Church at the time, where Rome and Avignon were used as residences by rival claimants to the Papacy, and was not resolved until 1417.

And I agree that the Papacy can be moved.

However, it is defined de Fide Catholic Dogma that

**According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in the Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. **

and,

**The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome. **

While in Avignon - the Popes were always Bishop of Rome.

 

[Fortiterinre]

The Pope exercises “the Petrine Ministry,” the leadership of the ordinary magisterium, which throughout all of Christian history has been tied to the See of Rome. The Avignon Popes never renounced their title as Bishops of Rome; in fact, the city of Avignon is itself a diocese and always had a diocesan bishop whether a Pope lived there or not. Government examples are always insufficient to discuss church leadership, but usually the leader of a body or college is also a full and regular member of that body.

The British Prime Minister is also an MP; the Speaker of the House in the US is also a Congressman representing and actual district. The US Senate is the exception, since the Vice President is the leader but only participates for tie-breaking. It would be rather strange for the Pope to be “only” the Pope; as a Bishop the Pope is even more intimately connected to his flock.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Sean O L:

However, it is defined de Fide Catholic Dogma that

**According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in the Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. **

and,

**The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome. **

While in Avignon - the Popes were always Bishop of Rome.

I agree with you. I do not doubt that the Popes will always be Bishop of Rome, no matter where they are.

Gerry

 

[Digitonomy]

RobedWithLight:

I agree with you. I do not doubt that the Popes will always be Bishop of Rome, no matter where they are.

Always is a long time. However, I do not foresee the day when the Pope is not Bishop of Rome.
Sean O L:

However, it is defined de Fide Catholic Dogma that

• **According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in the Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. ***

and,

**The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.**The phrase “for all time” does not appear to apply to the second sentence, which is written in the present tense. It is possible that a more complete, but equally true, sentence would read

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome, but in future will instead be Bishops of Wagga Wagga.

Possible, but unlikely.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Tanais:

I was a bit curious about one of the things Mr. Keating said in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Although I am a huge fan of the book, one of the things he said in there struck my curiousity. Here is the quote:

Now, to me this seems to imply that the papacy could be moved, i.e. the Pope doesn’t necessarily have to stay as the bishop of Rome but move his see to somewhere else. Now, I am just curious is that possible or not and if not what does Mr. Keating mean in this statement?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

That is correct the Pope is still the Bishop of Rome no matter where he resides. So yes the Pope could move to Cleveland, but would still be Peters successor and today would be the Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of Cleveland.

 

[Tanais]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is correct the Pope is still the Bishop of Rome no matter where he resides. So yes the Pope could move to Cleveland, but would still be Peters successor and today would be the Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of Cleveland.

I see. Then what does Mr. Keating mean? For in this excerpt he seems to imply that if Peter had not ever been to Rome and one of his successors (one that didn’t start out as Bishop of Rome) had gone there that would make the see of Rome Peter’s See. Any thoughts?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Tanais:

I see. Then what does Mr. Keating mean? For in this excerpt he seems to imply that if Peter had not ever been to Rome and one of his successors (one that didn’t start out as Bishop of Rome) had gone there that would make the see of Rome Peter’s See. Any thoughts?

I inserted the word “today” because Peters last See was Rome. However if as you say Peter never went to Rome, which we know he did. Then the pope would still be Peters Successor as the Bishop of Antioch or where ever Peter was last Bishop. That is my opinion.