If Constantine made the capital Constantinople shouldn’t the pope reside there?

[TomH1]

“Strike that. Reverse it.”

but otherwise, that’s e4xactul [sic] the issue.

To the first sentence I say no. No reversal is required. The College of Cardinals in conclave elect the Bishop of Rome. Everything else he is stems from being the bishop of that see. Pope is not even an official title.

With respect to your second sentence I am unable to make a response because I admit to not understanding what you have written.

 

[whatistrue]

To the first sentence I say no. No reversal is required

I agree with dochawk. You said that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, which implies, whether that is your meaning or not, that the person elected as Pope becomes the Bishop of Rome. Whereas the fact is, as you yourself just said, the person elected as Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope.

 

[TomH1]

That is not what I said in my first post on this thread. However, if people do not understand that post please allow to clarify what I said.

Pope is an English word derived from Latin papa, which came from Greek pappas (πάππας). It simply means ‘father’. It is not one of the pope’s official titles. We simply refer to him by that word. The pope is actually the bishop of the diocese of Rome.

Because he is the bishop of Rome and his see is based in the city of Rome that is where he resides.

 

[whatistrue]

I understand that it is not what you meant. But it is how the sentence you wrote reads to me. It fundamentally doesn’t matter because we both (all three?) have the same actual understanding. Truce?

 

[BartholomewB]

Do I have this right?

The two events are certainly closely linked. Constantine became the ruler of the whole Roman Empire in October 312. Within a year or two, I believe, the persecution of Christians ceased throughout the Empire. But another ten years or so went by until he picked Byzantium as the site of his new capital. His rebuilding project is said to have begun in 326, after the Council of Nicea.

 

[EricPH]

One of the things that’s stood out to me is that Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople.

Just a thought, but Peter and Paul followed Christ. I have always thought that the place for the pope to be is Jerusalem.

 

[Bithynian]

The two events are certainly closely linked. Constantine became the ruler of the whole Roman Empire in October 312. Within a year or two, I believe, the persecution of Christians ceased throughout the Empire. But another ten years or so went by until he picked Byzantium as the site of his new capital. His rebuilding project is said to have begun in 326, after the Council of Nicea.

I’d also add that the diocese of Byzantium had its own bishop who was subject to the Metropolitan of Heraclea.

Bishops of the early church were highly territorial: many canons of the first few ecumenical councils dealt with issues of jurisdiction. I can’t imagine that it would have gone over well for the Bishop of Rome (or any bishop for that matter) to fix his residence in another diocese.

 

[phil19034]

Just a thought, but Peter and Paul followed Christ. I have always thought that the place for the pope to be is Jerusalem.

God often works through ordinary means.

This is just my personal view, but I don’t think Jerusalem was strategic “base” to evangelize the whole world from.

The conversion of Rome allowed Christianity to spread very quickly.

Plus, until the invention of airplanes, Rome really was pretty central location for a world wide mission.

 

[George720]

Bishops of the early church were highly territorial:

Some still are…

And should be…

geo

 

[dochawk]

To the first sentence I say no. No reversal is required. The College of Cardinals in conclave elect the Bishop of Rome.

That’s exactly why it needs reversal–it is that the cardinals choose the bishop of Rome, who is consequentially the pope. It’s not that “Fundamentally, the pope is the Bishop of Rome” but or “papacy” is an aspect of the ministry of the see of Rome, not something in and of itself.

Thus, reverse it, but fundamentally correct.

It is in (barely) living memory that the US RC bishops attempted to take the Divine Liturgy away from us and impose the Mass on us . . .

 

[TomH1]

That’s exactly why it needs reversal

It requires no reversal. My English is correct. I have also posted a clarification to express it in simple terms for those that did not understand me.

 

[AlbMagno]

If someone read TomH1 response in context, he is saying the same as dochawk. He is just making it in reverse to make the OP reason from the word “pope”.