Pope Francis wants greater roles for women in the Church.

[TimothyH]

Both men and women can be commissioned as readers today. Only males can be instituted as lectors. I think instituting individuals as lectors and acolytes will remain largely focused on males on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate.

There is no upside to permanently instituting lectors and acolytes except for those men becoming priests and deacons. There is great potential downside.

This is a very utilitarian view of people.

Being a reader, lector, sacristan, acolyte, deacon or priest is not about upside but about vocation.

God’s plan for us is our vocation. We fulfill Gods plan for ourselves, and God’s plan for all of creation when we find and fill our vocation. God’s plan is the perfect plan - we just have to find it. If everyone found and filled their vocation then God’s master plan would work out perfectly and the world would be an entirely beautiful place. 1 Corinthians 12 addresses the idea of vocation specifically.

Instead of thinking about upside or downside - risk/reward or cost/benefit - maybe we should be thinking in terms of vocation. God can call someone to be a reader without being a deacon. God can call someone to be an sacristan or an altar server or an acolyte without being a deacon.

Everyone should forget about males and females for a moment and ask themselves what God’s plan is for us here on earth, why he made us and what his plan is for us, and then go after that. The world would be an amazing place if everyone did that.

Mary and Joseph are the perfect examples. They didn’t think about upside or downsise. They knew what God wanted them to do and they did it.

-Tim-

 

[KP3243]

That’s not at all what I said. I said nothing about the Church adopting the world’s changes. Lemme repost again:

Changes happen. Otherwise we would not have an opportunity for conversion. Christ calls us to change. The world changes around us. If we deny that change happens in the world we do the same things over and over, which is probably what hell is like. (and no, I am not claiming the Church changes dogma or that God changes).
sheesh

To be fair a lot of people that chime in for change are really whether intentionally or unintentionally actually calling for the heresy of Modernism. Catholics in the US are usually the biggest violators of Modernism in the Church. It’s part of the reason why the rest of the universal Church is weary about electing a Cardinal from the US to be Pope. They usually say it’s because the US is the Super Power but the underlying fact is that Catholics in the US are more prone to Modernism than any other group of Catholics.

 

[edwest2]

I agree all women are different but in the US we treat motherhood literally like it is a disease right now and that needs to be changed. Are you a parent? Because the biggest joy of being a parent is that you get grandchildren and if you have a big family right around when your youngest leaves, your grandchildren start coming and staying with you. Affirming children with love from several generations is a huge deal and children are more secure. My grandmother always says it a joy to help your children with their children so you know they have peace of mind that they are in your care. I hated daycare as a kid even though they had more things to do and more kids my age I still didn’t like it, I didn’t mind going to my grandma’s house even though it was just her and I. The fact that daycare even exists just goes to show you how far off track we have become with the family.

Motherhood was downgraded by people who hated the family, motherhood and children. Multi-generational ties are badly needed, today. I saw what happened when some became convinced that they ‘needed’ to be more materialistic. People often don’t know how to do without and to sacrifice for your family. My parents sacrificed and did without and they were happy, but there’s no money in that. The Church calls us to serve and sacrifice now - the same for parents for their kids.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To be fair a lot of people that chime in for change are really whether intentionally or unintentionally actually calling for the heresy of Modernism. Catholics in the US are usually the biggest violators of Modernism in the Church. It’s part of the reason why the rest of the universal Church is weary about electing a Cardinal from the US to be Pope. They usually say it’s because the US is the Super Power but the underlying fact is that Catholics in the US are more prone to Modernism than any other group of Catholics.

I think that’s the big problem: Modernism.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Pulvis]

To be fair a lot of people that chime in for change are really whether intentionally or unintentionally actually calling for the heresy of Modernism. Catholics in the US are usually the biggest violators of Modernism in the Church. It’s part of the reason why the rest of the universal Church is weary about electing a Cardinal from the US to be Pope. They usually say it’s because the US is the Super Power but the underlying fact is that Catholics in the US are more prone to Modernism than any other group of Catholics.

I would respectfully argue that not just the US, but all of western society, which was heavily influenced and infected by the enlightenment philosophies. This is what His Holiness Pope St. Pius X warned us of in *Pascendi Domenici Gregis, and obviously, His warnings went unheeded. And the change, as edWest has alluded to are occurring both in secular society and in the Church. And this is not coincidence, nor is it simply a cause and effect situation. This is the demonic plan of the father of all lies and it is working. And will continue until the end.

“[11] Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. [12] For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. [13] Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.” Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Ephesians, Ch. 6 drbo.org/index.htm

*vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[Horacio]

So you disagree with the practice, currently occuring in a few conservative dioceses, of permanently instituting (male) lectors who are not on their way to becoming deacons or priests?

Unless the formation for instituted lectors is a great deal more in depth than that for commissioned readers, I believe the long term risk far outweighs any benefits.

A lector is instituted for life. They also have primacy of a commissioned reader at a Mass. If over time the lector’s ability to perform his ministry erodes, the celebrant would sill be obliged to have the instituted lector read at the Mass rather than a potentially more able commissioned reader.

There may be value in instituting males as both acolytes and readers but again, any advantage goes out the window unless their formations and ongoing training/prayer are not considerably more than those who are commissioned.

 

[JRKH]

There’s wisdom here.

We already have a thread on women deacons/cardinal etc. so we don;t need to rehash that here.

What roles of women COULD be deepened?

And does that necessarily mean “institutionalized” or turned into an “office”?

Or does it mean that the roles that women play should be seen as more important and more necessary than they are?

For instance, if motherhood was given more respect what would that look like?

I know that for my own kids the most important person in the world is their mother - not me (and I would die for them).

Pretty much every role can be deepened. AS I said - this is not about titles, it’s about respect and an acceptance.
The importance of mother hood? - - Yes absolutely. This should be addressed more in the Church as a vocation - Fatherhood too for that matter.
The ability and importance of women in parish life?? Again - absolutely…What parish could function without the ladies who work and who volunteer etc…
In Academia…at every level it was, and often is, the women - the sisters and nuns who taught and teach the generations.
Can women be excellent theologians? I don’t see why not…
How about authors? Again - absolutely.
Can they preach?? No one is stopping them (with the exception of the homily in mass).
Now -
Might women have a larger role in - say - the bishopric and the bishops / religious conferences etc?? Possibly.
But in all of these things the key factor to be recognized and implemented by all parties is the sense of respect and the call to service.

It would be nice if Pope Francis did define new roles for women (and men!) in the Church, or at least more fully defined them. In that same document he could answer the question definitively once and for all if women may be ordained to the permanent diaconate. Too many resources are spent arguing over this question.

I don’t know that this would be very helpful. The reason is that any further “definition” could / would likely only add “fuel to the fire” of the more radical elements. The mean old pope further limiting women by “defining” their role…

Just a thought…

Ok. So then how does the idea of a male nun grab you? Just asking.

Actually we already have these…they are called religious brothers.

Peace
James

 

[clem456]

I would respectfully argue that not just the US, but all of western society, which was heavily influenced and infected by the enlightenment philosophies. This is what His Holiness Pope St. Pius X warned us of in *Pascendi Domenici Gregis, and obviously, His warnings went unheeded. And the change, as edWest has alluded to are occurring both in secular society and in the Church. And this is not coincidence, nor is it simply a cause and effect situation. This is the demonic plan of the father of all lies and it is working. And will continue until the end.

Could you elaborate further on the bolded?

 

[Horacio]

This is a very utilitarian view of people.

Being a reader, lector, sacristan, acolyte, deacon or priest is not about upside but about vocation.

God’s plan for us is our vocation. We fulfill Gods plan for ourselves, and God’s plan for all of creation when we find and fill our vocation. God’s plan is the perfect plan - we just have to find it. If everyone found and filled their vocation then God’s master plan would work out perfectly and the world would be an entirely beautiful place. 1 Corinthians 12 addresses the idea of vocation specifically.

Instead of thinking about upside or downside - risk/reward or cost/benefit - maybe we should be thinking in terms of vocation. God can call someone to be a reader without being a deacon. God can call someone to be an sacristan or an altar server or an acolyte without being a deacon.

Everyone should forget about males and females for a moment and ask themselves what God’s plan is for us here on earth, why he made us and what his plan is for us, and then go after that. The world would be an amazing place if everyone did that.

Mary and Joseph are the perfect examples. They didn’t think about upside or downsise. They knew what God wanted them to do and they did it.

-Tim-

I don’t believe that God “calls” people to be sacristans, altar servers, readers, acolytes, lectors, EMsHC, etc. I think God calls all Catholics to serve His Church and outside of clerics, we typically choose what role to assume.

What exactly is the benefit(s) of permanently instituting men as “permanent” acolytes and lectors rather than temporarily commissioning them? I don’t see any at all.

Because there is no intrinsic value to the Church in my opinion, I see this as having great potential for abuse – the wrong men politicking to be instituted for no other reason than to have greater status in their parishes. Certain men being instituted as a “favor.” The wrong men being rewarded for legitimately good service to the Church (“Norm has chaired the BBQ committee for 27 years and has done an awesome job!”) This happened in decades past with the positions of “porter” and even subdeacon. I think there are plenty of men (and women) who absolutely ache to be instituted primarily (but not singularly) because they seek greater status in their parishes. They want a tangible sign that they are somehow different from others sitting in the pews.

Further there is the issue of needlessly shutting out others. If a parish had enough instituted acolytes and lectors, no female would be able to read at Mass, no matter how capable she might be. Their presence would largely negate the need for altar boys as well. There is no reason for that.

I think there could possibly be real benefit in instituting acolytes and lectors if a lot more was required out of the aspirants. They should be required to first serve for a considerable length of time as readers and altar servers. It would also be nice if they were asked by the pastor rather than apply (I think the best potential acolytes and lectors would quietly refuse anyway.) They should undergo a lengthy formation that includes both practical experience, spritual direction and reading. There should also be an ongoing activity outside of Sunday Mass where all acolytes and readers (and anyone else who wanted to join them) gather for prayer and possibly a Mass.

Because their service would largely be at Mass, they could also undergo training in CPR, crowd control/ushering and other practical skills that would benefit the congregation. But to institute males without all this? There simply is no reason to.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think that’s the big problem: Modernism.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

 

[Michael_Mayo]

… No need for more political tokenism and worship of titles.

Do you see the permanent diaconate that way as well?

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t believe that God “calls” people to be sacristans, altar servers, readers, acolytes, lectors, EMsHC, etc. I think God calls all Catholics to serve His Church and outside of clerics, we typically choose what role to assume.

What exactly is the benefit(s) of permanently instituting men as “permanent” acolytes and lectors rather than temporarily commissioning them? I don’t see any at all.

Because there is no intrinsic value to the Church, I see this as having great potential for abuse – the wrong men politicking to be instituted for no other reason than to have greater status in their parishes. Certain men being instituted as a “favor.” The wrong men being rewarded for legitimately good service to the Church (“Norm has chaired the BBQ committee for 27 years and has done an awesome job!”) This happened in years past with the positions of “porter” and even subdeacon.

Further there is the issue of needlessly shutting out others. If a parish had enough instituted acolytes and lectors, no female would be able to read at Mass, no matter how capable she might be. Their presence would largely negate the need for altar boys as well. There is no reason for that.

I think there could possibly be real benefit in instituting acolytes and lectors if a lot more was required out of the aspirants. They should be required to first serve for a considerable length of time as readers and altar servers. It would also be nice if they were asked by the pastor rather than apply. They should undergo a lengthy formation that includes both practical experience, spritual direction and reading. There should also be an ongoing activity outside of Sunday Mass where all acolytes and readers (and anyone else who wanted to join them) gather for prayer and possibly a Mass.

Because their service would largely be at Mass, they could also undergo training in CPR, crowd control/ushering and other practical skills that would benefit the congregation. But to institute males without all this? There simply is no reason to.

Horacio, not everything in life can be reduced to benefit, value and practicality.

Abraham was called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, left his family to soujourn in tents. Moses didn’t want to go to Pharaoh. Jonah sailed away on a boat and threw himself into the sea to escape the work God called him to do. Saul had to be struck blind before he became Paul. Peter denied Jesus and ran away. Even Christ said, “Not my will but thy will be done.”

All these eventually fulfilled their vocation, the work God gave them to do, the mission God sent them here to accomplish. 1 Corinthians 12 speaks directly about this issue.

Horatio, God created you for a reason. He has a specific plan for you. I hope you see that someday.

-Tim-

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you see the permanent diaconate that way as well?

How would the long-standing permanent diaconate qualify as political tokenism?

 

[Horacio]

Horacio, not everything in life can be reduced to benefit, value and practicality.

Abraham was called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, left his family to soujourn in tents. Moses didn’t want to go to Pharaoh. Jonah sailed away on a boat and threw himself into the sea to escape the work God called him to do. Saul had to be struck blind before he became Paul. Peter denied Jesus and ran away. Even Christ said, “Not my will but thy will be done.”

All these eventually fulfilled their vocation, the work God gave them to do, the mission God sent them here to accomplish. 1 Corinthians 12 speaks directly about this issue.

Horatio, God created you for a reason. He has a specific plan for you. I hope you see that someday.

-Tim-

I don’t believe that God “calls” laypeople to be sacristans, altar servers, readers, acolytes, lectors, EMsHC, etc. I believe God calls all laypeople to serve His Church (consecrated religious being a special case) and most of us choose how to do so.

You still haven’t articulated a single reason for permanently instituting males as “permanent” lectors and acolytes. I have listed some grave potential downfalls. I think those most serious and devoted to serving God’s Church through a liturgical ministry would be the very last ones concerned about being permanently instituted anyway. Their focus would be to serve, not to gain a title.

There was a fellow in my parish who was an adult altar server and reader. He did adequately in both. He was absolutely obsessed about becoming an instituted lector and acolyte. His big argument (the only one he had) is that he would be able to licitly help with purifying the sacred vessels. He was fanatical about it. While he was technically correct, that alone is no reason to permanently institute anyone. I’m not sure what finally happened to him but he was never instituted to anything. I’m not entirely sure that he was ever re-commissioned for that matter.

I don’t mean to judge you but based on what you have written, I suspect that you are a man that very much wants to be permanently instituted as a lector and acolyte and that you feel a real need to defend your desire.

 

[Memaw]

I agree all women are different but in the US we treat motherhood literally like it is a disease right now and that needs to be changed. Are you a parent? Because the biggest joy of being a parent is that you get grandchildren and if you have a big family right around when your youngest leaves, your grandchildren start coming and staying with you. Affirming children with love from several generations is a huge deal and children are more secure. My grandmother always says it a joy to help your children with their children so you know they have peace of mind that they are in your care. I hated daycare as a kid even though they had more things to do and more kids my age I still didn’t like it, I didn’t mind going to my grandma’s house even though it was just her and I. The fact that daycare even exists just goes to show you how far off track we have become with the family.

I agree 100% and I had my grandkids while their Mom’s worked and they are all very close to me today. I taught them their ABC’s, their prayers and a lot about their faith. We read Saint. stories etc.
The Church tried to tell the women of their greatest role in the Church and so many refused it. I am talking of the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae. (Of Human Life). It is one of the most beautiful Encyclicals I have ever read. I wonder how many Catholic women even actually read it. And it is sooo prophetic. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Michael_Mayo]

How would the long-standing permanent diaconate qualify as political tokenism?

It doesn’t but I don’t think deaconesses would have to qualify either.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Women Deacons? A Perspective on the Sacrament of Orders

---

Müller explained that the diaconate is not a separate sacrament, but part of the sacrament of orders. He noted that there never have been priestly ordinations of women, a possibility excluded by the Church on many occasions. Following is an excerpt from Müller´s interview.

Q: Is the diaconate a sacrament in its own right?

Müller: The Church teaches clearly that the sacrament of orders is one of the seven sacraments of the Church; as the full exercise in the Holy Spirit of the mission, unique in its origin, of the apostles of Christ, exercised in its fullness by the bishop. According to its degree of specificity, the differentiated participation in it is called presbyterate or diaconate.

Q: Is it possible to separate the diaconate of women from the priesthood of women?

Müller: No – because of the unity of the sacrament of orders, which has been underlined in the deliberations of the Theological Commission; it cannot be measured with a different yardstick. Then it would be a real discrimination of woman if she is considered as apt for the diaconate, but not for the presbyterate or episcopacy.

The unity of the sacrament would be torn at its root if, the diaconate as ministry of service, was opposed to the presbyterate as ministry of government, and from this would be deduced that woman, as opposed to man, has a greater affinity to serve and because of this would be apt for the diaconate but not for the presbyterate.

However, the apostolic ministry all together is a service in the three degrees in which it is exercised.

The Church does not ordain women, not because they are lacking some spiritual gift or natural talent, but because – as in the sacrament of marriage – the sexual difference and of the relation between man and woman contains in itself a symbolism that presents and represents in itself a prior condition to express the salvific dimension of the relation of Christ and the Church.

If the deacon, with the bishop and presbyter, starting from the radical unity of the three degrees of the orders, acts from Christ, head and Spouse of the Church, in favor of the Church, it is obvious that only a man can represent this relation of Christ with the Church.

And in reverse, it is equally obvious that God could only take his human nature from a woman and, because of this, womankind has in the order of grace – because of the internal reference of nature and grace – an unmistakable, fundamental, and in no way merely accidental importance.

Q: Are there binding doctrinal declarations regarding the question of the feminine diaconate?

Müller: The liturgical and theological tradition of the Church uses unanimous language. It is a binding and irreversible teaching of the Church on this matter, which is guaranteed by the ordinary and general magisterium of the Church, but which can be confirmed again with greater authority if the doctrinal tradition of the Church continues to be presented in an adulterated manner, for the purpose of forcing the evolution of a specific direction.

I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge of some, and the absence of the meaning of faith; if it wasn´t like this, they would know that it has never been possible and never will be to place the Church, precisely, in the central ambit of her doctrine and liturgy, in contradiction with sacred Scripture and her own Tradition.

Q: What happens when a validly ordained bishop, outside the communion of the Church, ordains a woman as deaconess?

Müller: Invisibly, that is, before God, nothing happens, because such an ordination is invalid. Visibly, that is, in the Church, if something [like this] happens, a Catholic bishop who carries out an irregular ordination incurs the penalty of excommunication.

Q: Could the Pope say that in the future women will receive the diaconate?

Müller: Contrary to what many think, the Pope is not the owner of the Church or absolute sovereign of her doctrine. He is only entrusted with safeguarding Revelation and its authentic interpretation.

Keeping the Church´s faith in mind, which is expressed in its dogmatic and liturgical practice, it is all together impossible for the Pope to intervene in the substance of the sacraments, to which the question of the legitimate receiving subject of the sacrament of orders essentially belongs.

Q: Are women completely excluded from participation in ecclesial services? Is there no place for women in the Church?

Müller: If we leave to one side a clerical reduction of the Church, the question is no longer asked in this way. In her vital processes and in her service to man, the Church is the essential co-responsibility of all Christians, specifically also of the laity.

In many countries at present we cannot complain of an excess of active apostolate of the laity. Let us think of the dramatic withdrawal of women´s orders and religious communities, without which the Church would never have taken root in the different nations and cultures.

In the specific ministries of canon and human law, to which the laity can also be called to collaborate together with the hierarchy, namely the bishop, presbyter and deacon, women carry out important services for the Church, which are also satisfying to themselves from the human and spiritual point of view.

What women accomplish today as professors of religion, professors of theology, pastoral agents, and also in unremunerated activities in the communities goes far beyond what the deaconesses of the early Church did.

The re-establishment of the former ministry of the deaconesses would only be an amusing anachronism. On the contrary, the Council has given guidelines for the future for the collaboration of the laity in Chapter 4 of the constitution “Lumen Gentium” – unfortunately, not much studied.

 

[livingwordunity]

Post #23

Exactly! The spirit of the world doesn’t want the Church to “better explain” their theological position, it wants the Church to abandon its position and follow it.

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”–Matthew 4:8-9

People who are caught up in the spirit of the world will only follow the Church when it resembles what they’re already worshiping and that is themselves.

 

[KP3243]

I agree 100% and I had my grandkids while their Mom’s worked and they are all very close to me today. I taught them their ABC’s, their prayers and a lot about their faith. We read Saint. stories etc.
The Church tried to tell the women of their greatest role in the Church and so many refused it. I am talking of the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae. (Of Human Life). It is one of the most beautiful Encyclicals I have ever read. I wonder how many Catholic women even actually read it. And it is sooo prophetic. God Bless, Memaw

I am a younger Catholic woman and I can’t think of a job I would want to have more than being a good Catholic wife and mother and to create a happy home for my family, which is centered on Christ. I still haven’t found my husband and if you wouldn’t mind saying prayer for me to find him that would be great! I want so much to be the woman in Proverbs 31. I think I am going to spend time with Humanae Vitae this weekend! God bless you and your family!

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I dislike the notion that the Papacy must reflect diversity. The Pope is properly the Bishop of Rome. He is elected by the Roman clergy (the Cardinals all possess Roman churches). When was the last time you heard of a Brazillian being appointed Archbishop or Warsaw? Or a Croat being appointed to Vietnam?

The particular Church of Rome is a real thing and its integrity should be respected. It’s a true local and individual Church. Yes it occupies an integral part of the Church, its bishop exercises supreme judicial and doctrinal authority. I have no problem with not having a Pope from my own community or background. I don’t need it to feel like I belong any more than I already do. I don’t need an Irishman’s face on Saint Peter’s Chair to make sure “everyone gets a shot”. I also find it highly amusing that in such an age where pastoral care is of such concern to the men and women of the Church, that they’d elect a bishop to a See where he’s barely spent any time and has a bare minimal competence with the native language. Lovely.

The Bishopric of Rome should only be available to Italians. Preference for one of the clergy of Rome itself. And the Cardinals likewise limited to Romans and Italians for the most part.

I understand your argument, but the reality is that the office of the papacy has grown beyond the Holy See. While I would not expect the pope to perfectly reflect the diversity of the Church, I would like to see the electorate more reflective of this diversity in recognition of the realities of his office.

From the Catechism:

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

As I read these paragraphs, I understand them to mean that in addition to his role as Bishop of Rome the Pope is also the head of Christ’s church on earth. That means all other clergy are subject to him. If you are the leader of a worldwide organization, wouldn’t it make sense that you spend time among the people all over the world so you can understand their needs?

The most effective leaders in history are the ones who take a personal interest in their people and spend time with them to show it rather than hiding behind walls and trusting others to report to them.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that it shouldn’t be “everyone has a chance.” The best man for the job, as determined by the Holy Spirit, is the only man for the job. It’s just a much bigger job than just being Bishop of Rome.