Must the pope be bishop of Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitonomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Digitonomy

Guest
Hypothetical question here. The thread about the wacky guy in Kansas who claims to be pope, in spite of not being a priest yet, got me thinking about the Holy Father’s role as bishop of Rome.

I know that it is firmly established tradition that he be bishop of Rome, site of the Holy See, and there is no prospect that this will change, and this role is therefore described in the Catechism.

However, if a pope were to move the See to another location, must he necessarily remain bishop of Rome? Was Peter the pope prior to moving to Rome? Did the popes in Avignon retain their diocese in Rome? I suspect they did, as the move to France was under a bit of duress.

But suppose Pope John Paul announced that it was God’s will that the Holy See move to the heart of Africa, to better meet the challenges of paganism and Islam, and to separate from the poisonous influence of western secularism. Would there be any obstacle to naming a bishop or cardinal as the official bishop of Rome, while henceforth the pope would be bishop of say, Kampala?
 
The Petrine Office resides in the person.

Wherever he is, there is the Papacy.

Saint Peter was Pope throughout his travels, and also while he guided the church at Jerusalem and at Antioch.

So following that logic I would say a true Pope may reside anywhere.

According to usage in the East the Patriarchs claim Apostolic succession but recognize that the importanceof their Sees also depends upon the Importance of their cities (or the one-time importance). All of the major Patriarchal centers have had their ups and downs so to speak (the possible exception being Alexandria). Even Rome suffered so greatly that it once had only thirty thousand people and terrible health and sanitation problems, although today it is a healthy and vigourous metropolis.

In any case, when the Popes removed themselves to Avignon (or were abducted, depending upon how one reads history) they retained the title of Bishop of Rome and had a suffragen in the city (I believe ranked as an Archbishop). The connection to Rome was too highly valued historically and the Popes were unwilling to allow any criticism based upon the fact that they were not in the city.

So I would guess that the title and responsibility of Bishop of Rome will remain with the Popes, even if they need to leave. A precedent for that can be seen with the Patriarchate of Antioch, none of the Patriarchs of Antioch (three Catholic, one Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox) actually reside in Antioch today, the city is pretty much a ruin compared to it’s salad days.

In Christ Always,
Michael
 
While a pope may reside elsewhere (e.g. Avignon), he is necessarily the bishop of Rome… it is the the bishop of Rome who is responsible for the worldwide Church, i.e. he is the one who goes by the title Pope. Where a man to retire from the position of bishop of Rome, he would automatically and necessarily also retire from the position of pope.
 
Theoretically a pope could set up shop wherever he wanted. But traditions over a thousand years old establish him as the Bishop of Rome and the Papacy is and has been linked to that office.
 

Here’s some interesting facts from history, from Catholicism for Dummies p. 363:​

13th Century.
Due to tension between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Benedict IX ended up being pope during a time when the College of Cardinals split between those who despised the French, and those who wanted to make amends and move on.
Pope Clement V’s Papal coronation took place in Lyons, but he never set foot in Rome. He was French and easily swayed by King Philip of France to come to France.

The next 70 years is referred to as the “Babylonian Captivity of the Popes.” A time when the Popes resided in Avignon France. Well, St. Catherine of Siena was received to have a word with Pope Gregory XI, and pleaded with him to return to Rome where the Pope as Bishop of Rome belongs. He heeded her pleas and moved the Papacy back to Rome.​

There have been other times when the Pope wasn’t in Rome. Like, the Pope didn’t always reside in Vatican City, there was an era when they were in St. John the Lateran’s Church. Well, maybe that’s in Vatican City too. It’s late. I’m not sure.

There’s more to the Pope than Rome.
 
Yes, I believe that Catherine of Siena was **quite insistent ** that the Pope needed to get himself back to Rome!
 
Also did you know anyone can become the pope? Even a layman! But they would need to go thru holy order sacraments and all that entails to become a bishop. So I even have a chance:D
 
Dear Jermosh:

No, I don’t think so.

The Apostolic Constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” issued by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in 1996 is the current law on the election and, therefore, the qualifications, of the Supreme Pontiff. This is a 'special law" governing the matter.

It abrogates all laws pertaining to this matter and it amends or modifies related provisions in the Codes of Canons (for East and West).

Based on the aforecited Apostolic Constitution, the Codes of Canons, and on the traditions of the Roman Church, I think the following are clear:

(1) General Rule.–The Sacred College of Cardinals, in conclave, elect the next Pope from among themselves, i.e., Cardinal electors (under 80) and non-conclave Cardinals (80 and over) are equally eligible for election.

This is inferred from Provision #53 of the AC which provides that the Supreme Pontiff shall be elected from among the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

This in effect precludes the election of a layman (including women or minors) because of Canon 351, Section 1 of the 1983 Latin Code of Canons (and the corresponding Eastern Canon) which provides that those to be promoted Cardinals are men who are at least in the order of priesthood.

The last non-Cardinal who was elected Pope was Pope Urban VI, the then Archbishop of Acerenza (Kingdom of Naples), who was Supreme Pontiff from 1378 through his death in 1389.

(2) Exception.–The AC recognizes the remote possibility of an impasse in the elections of the next Pope. In such an event, the Cardinal-electors may elect a non-member of the Sacred College, i.e., a non-Cardinal under Provision #83!

However, even under this exception, such an “outsider” must be at least a priest because under Canon 355, Section 1, of the Latin Code, the newly elected Supreme Pontiff must be consecrated a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, to canonically exercise his office.

By the way, since 769 A.D. non-Cardinal clerics and the laity have been debarred from participating in the election of the Pope.

Based on the foregoing, the chances for a Catholic layman, or a non-Cardinal for that matter, to be elected as Pope are nil.
 
I think technically the Cardinals elect not a pope but a Bishop of Rome. Pope is the popular term, but I think his official office is that of Bishop of Rome.
 
40.png
Amadeus:
Dear Jermosh:

No, I don’t think so.

The Apostolic Constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” issued by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in 1996 is the current law on the election and, therefore, the qualifications, of the Supreme Pontiff. This is a 'special law" governing the matter.

It abrogates all laws pertaining to this matter and it amends or modifies related provisions in the Codes of Canons (for East and West).

Based on the aforecited Apostolic Constitution, the Codes of Canons, and on the traditions of the Roman Church, I think the following are clear:

(1) General Rule.–The Sacred College of Cardinals, in conclave, elect the next Pope from among themselves, i.e., Cardinal electors (under 80) and non-conclave Cardinals (80 and over) are equally eligible for election.

This is inferred from Provision #53 of the AC which provides that the Supreme Pontiff shall be elected from among the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

This in effect precludes the election of a layman (including women or minors) because of Canon 351, Section 1 of the 1983 Latin Code of Canons (and the corresponding Eastern Canon) which provides that those to be promoted Cardinals are men who are at least in the order of priesthood.

The last non-Cardinal who was elected Pope was Pope Urban VI, the then Archbishop of Acerenza (Kingdom of Naples), who was Supreme Pontiff from 1378 through his death in 1389.

(2) Exception.–The AC recognizes the remote possibility of an impasse in the elections of the next Pope. In such an event, the Cardinal-electors may elect a non-member of the Sacred College, i.e., a non-Cardinal under Provision #83!

However, even under this exception, such an “outsider” must be at least a priest because under Canon 355, Section 1, of the Latin Code, the newly elected Supreme Pontiff must be consecrated a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, to canonically exercise his office.

By the way, since 769 A.D. non-Cardinal clerics and the laity have been debarred from participating in the election of the Pope.

Based on the foregoing, the chances for a Catholic layman, or a non-Cardinal for that matter, to be elected as Pope are nil.
Click to expand...
My bad then. I read it in my “Catholic for Dummies” book. Maybe they did not write it clearly.
 
Dear Joe Kelly:

You have a good point there!

However, under the AC and the Codes, the Cardinals in conclave elect the Roman Pontiff, not a “Bishop of Rome” nor a “Pope.”

Roman, because the Petrine Office was singularly given to Peter, as Bishop of the Church of Rome (the Apostolic See), and Pontiff, because he is the Supreme Pastor of the universal Church.

So, if a papabili is elected as the Roman Pontiff, he succeeds Peter as the Bishop of Rome, the Chief Shepherd of the entire Church, and, consequently, assumes also the title Supreme Pontiff or “Pontifex Maximus!”

I think the title “Pope” (from “Papa” of almost 2 millenia) is our affectionate monicker for the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pontiff, the Universal Pastor, the Servant of the Sevants of God, etc. combined!

I don’t really know but I will stand corrected if others can come up with a more acceptable explanation. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top