Is this practice Tradition or tradition?

[kalel76]

We Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of Peter and thus we call him Pope. However, is this belief part of Sacred Tradition and is thus unchangeable or is this a tradition that may (though it be extremely unlikely) change?

 

[1ke]

The Pope’s (the Bishop of Rome) headship of the Church (and infalliblility) are dogma. It is not changeable.

 

[kalel76]

So the practice of the Bishop of Rome being the pope is more than just a convention that the early Church fathers agreed upon?

 

[1ke]

I don’t understand your question.

 

[neophyte]

We Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of Peter and thus we call him Pope. However, is this belief part of Sacred Tradition and is thus unchangeable or is this a tradition that may (though it be extremely unlikely) change?

As in, what would happen if the entire Diocese of Rome were vaporized so that there could be no more Bishops of Rome?

My guess is that the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome is not essential to the faith. The sucessor to Peter being head of the Church is essential to the faith.

 

[LilyM]

As in, what would happen if the entire Diocese of Rome were vaporized so that there could be no more Bishops of Rome?

My guess is that the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome is not essential to the faith. The sucessor to Peter being head of the Church is essential to the faith.

Put it this way, the two titles go together, and have done since St Peter lived and died there.

And it would never be impossible for there to exist a Bishop of Rome. Even now, some bishops and cardinals are given what are called ‘titular sees’ - in other words their ‘diocese’ exists on paper only and not as a functional place which needs practical administration.

So the Pope can always be titular Bishop of Rome. And given Rome’s importance to the Catholic Church it is unimaginable that this wouldn’t happen.

 

[diggerdomer]

Put it this way, the two titles go together, and have done since St Peter lived and died there…

That’s not historically accurate, but nonetheless it seems inconceivable to me that the Pope could ever be someone other than the Bishop of Rome. I really don’t see anywhere in Church teaching that it could happen.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

We Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of Peter and thus we call him Pope. However, is this belief part of Sacred Tradition and is thus unchangeable or is this a tradition that may (though it be extremely unlikely) change?

Tradition, however we do not call him the “Pope” because he is the Bishop of Rome and the rightful successor of Peter.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

As in, what would happen if the entire Diocese of Rome were vaporized so that there could be no more Bishops of Rome?

My guess is that the Pope’s being Bishop of Rome is not essential to the faith. The sucessor to Peter being head of the Church is essential to the faith.

He would still be the Successor of Peter and the Bishop of Rome the historic See of Peter, even though he might for now, live in Chicago!

 

[kalel76]

I would imagine that if anything happened to Rome, the Bishop of Rome would still be the Bishop of Rome.

Even if Italy wished to rename Rome, I am sure he would still be called the Bishop of Rome. Just like the Patriarch of Constantinople is still called that even though Constantinople no longer formally exists.

My question had to do with whether the convention of the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter could ever be altered (i.e. is a tradition with a small “t”). Could the Church ever decide (through an ecumenical council, of course) that the successor of Peter ever be someone other than the Bishop of Rome?

 

[neophyte]

Put it this way, the two titles go together, and have done since St Peter lived and died there.

And it would never be impossible for there to exist a Bishop of Rome. Even now, some bishops and cardinals are given what are called ‘titular sees’ - in other words their ‘diocese’ exists on paper only and not as a functional place which needs practical administration.

So the Pope can always be titular Bishop of Rome. And given Rome’s importance to the Catholic Church it is unimaginable that this wouldn’t happen.

It seems to me that the fact that it’s Rome is an accident of history. If the capital of the Roman Empire had been somewhere else, then the Pope would have ended up being the Bishop of Somewhere Else. The Pope’s authority stems from the fact that he’s the sucessor to St. Peter. That’s the part that’s of the essence of the faith, not the fact that he’s the Bishop of Rome.

Just my guess.

 

[kalel76]

I have been reading through Ut unum sint and I think I have the answer. There is no separating the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter. It’s a Tradition

1. The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.

 

[Digitonomy]

I have been reading through Ut unum sint and I think I have the answer. There is no separating the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter. It’s a Tradition

Notwithstanding your quote, I think the pope could, if he chose, appoint someone else as Bishop of Rome, and yet retain his standing as Supreme Pontiff. If Peter could vacate the See of Antioch in favor of a successor, it seems that a future pontiff could vacate the See of Rome. Chance of it happening: infinitesimal.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hmmm…did Peter ever reside anywhere other than Rome? Did this disqualify him from being head of the early Church?

Did the legitimate Bishop of Rome ever reside anywhere other than Rome? In France, for example? Did this disqualify him from being the head of the earthly Church?

 

[diggerdomer]

Notwithstanding your quote, I think the pope could, if he chose, appoint someone else as Bishop of Rome, and yet retain his standing as Supreme Pontiff. If Peter could vacate the See of Antioch in favor of a successor, it seems that a future pontiff could vacate the See of Rome. Chance of it happening: infinitesimal.

But, the See of Rome had preeminence due to both Sts. Peter and Paul, so I don’t think we could ever lose the association of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff (or first among equals at least).

 

[Digitonomy]

But, the See of Rome had preeminence due to both Sts. Peter and Paul, so I don’t think we could ever lose the association of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff (or first among equals at least).

I don’t accept your claim that Rome is unique in that way. Although James is generally considered the first Bishop of Jerusalem, Peter was head of the Church at Jerusalem before leaving James behind. So I think it would be fair to say Peter was Bishop of Jerusalem, and it is universally accepted that he was Bishop of Antioch. Paul visited and was involved in key events in both those cities.

The main things that distinguish the See of Rome in the history of the papacy are that it is the most recent see, and the longest-lasting see, of the Supreme Pontiff. Those don’t seem like binding precedents that would prevent a future pope from vacating the see.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t accept your claim that Rome is unique in that way. Although James is generally considered the first Bishop of Jerusalem, Peter was head of the Church at Jerusalem before leaving James behind. So I think it would be fair to say Peter was Bishop of Jerusalem, and it is universally accepted that he was Bishop of Antioch. Paul visited and was involved in key events in both those cities.

The main things that distinguish the See of Rome in the history of the papacy are that it is the most recent see, and the longest-lasting see, of the Supreme Pontiff. Those don’t seem like binding precedents that would prevent a future pope from vacating the see.

You’re welcome to disagree with history and the writings of Fathers like St. Irenaeus.

I don’t know what you mean by Rome being “most recent”?

 

[Digitonomy]

diggerdomer:

I don’t know what you mean by Rome being “most recent”?

As of today, I think the pope still has his see in Rome. That makes it more recent than the last time the pontiff was Bishop of Antioch.

 

[diggerdomer]

As of today, I think the pope still has his see in Rome. That makes it more recent than the last time the pontiff was Bishop of Antioch.

Well of course. I thought you were saying something more with that. Rome being the “most recent” in that sense is not really part of the Tradition that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Shoot, in the 14th century the Popes spent a lot of time at Avignon, but Avignon didn’t become the See of the Pope despite its being “most recent.” There was really no concept of “Pope” (as we understand it) apart from the See of Rome, so Peter being in Antioch and Jerusalem before that doesn’t have much relevance as I see it. Clearly James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, anyway, from the New Testament witness. Thanks for clarifying.