Should the pope be always the bishop of Rome?

[twf]

It’s not really either / or. It is Catholic doctrine that the Bishop of Rome, by divine mandate, succeeds St Peter in his special primal ministry. We give the Bishop of Rome the special title of “Pope”, but that wasn’t always the case. The Pope of Rome is the bishop of the church in Rome, and as such holds primacy among all the bishops.

 

[porthos11]

twf:

Rather, when a man is elected Bishop of Rome, he also assumes the primal ministry of the papacy. The papacy is rooted in the episcopate of Rome, not the other way around.

Hmm… I was thinking he was elected ‘pope’, no? And, as pope, he is bishop of Rome. No?

More like, he was elected Bishop of Rome, and as Bishop of Rome, he is Pope.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

twf:

Rather, when a man is elected Bishop of Rome, he also assumes the primal ministry of the papacy. The papacy is rooted in the episcopate of Rome, not the other way around.

Hmm… I was thinking he was elected ‘pope’, no? And, as pope, he is bishop of Rome. No?

More like, he was elected Bishop of Rome, and as Bishop of Rome, he is Pope.

Which is, on the face of it, weird. Cardinal electors never have the authority to elect a bishop, as it were. They have the authority to elect a pope, however.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

Gorgias:

twf:

Rather, when a man is elected Bishop of Rome, he also assumes the primal ministry of the papacy. The papacy is rooted in the episcopate of Rome, not the other way around.

Hmm… I was thinking he was elected ‘pope’, no? And, as pope, he is bishop of Rome. No?

More like, he was elected Bishop of Rome, and as Bishop of Rome, he is Pope.

Which is, on the face of it, weird. Cardinal electors never have the authority to elect a bishop, as it were. They have the authority to elect a pope, however.

Nope. They do elect their Bishop, who is, of course, the Pope.

And that’s why Cardinals are Cardinals. They are a vestige of the ancient hierarchy of the diocese of Rome. Once upon a time, Cardinals were simply clergy incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, and this explains why to this day, a Cardinal is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, not a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Further, it explains why Cardinals always have a titular church within Rome, because as a titular cleric of the diocese of Rome, they are “clergy” of the Roman diocese.

In that role as clergy of the Roman diocese, the Cardinals are in fact electing their Bishop. Because the Bishop of Rome holds the Primacy, he is always the Pope. So yes, they are electing the Pope, because it is impossible to separate the Primacy from the Bishop of Rome. “Pope” is merely a title; even the Patriarch of Alexandria holds it without claiming any sort of primacy. The question is of where the Primacy lies, and that is with the Bishop of Rome.

So in fact, the Pope is Pope because he is Bishop of Rome.

 

[MeInMississippi]

Dr Taylor Marshall is advertising a free webinar that should be able to answer this question even further. I haven’t read all the responses to your question, but I’m sure there are some great replies that perhaps combined with the webinar would give you complete insight. It’s called Rome 101.

 

[dochawk]

Which is, on the face of it, weird . Cardinal electors never have the authority to elect a bishop , as it were. They have the authority to elect a pope , however.

No, they do not.

This is the source of your error.

Various methods of selecting bishops have been used over the millennia. The Bishop of Rome is selected by the voting cardinals.

Only as a consequence of being Bishop of Rome is he Pope; noone has the ability to choose a Pope. (although the Byzantine and later Austrian emperors had the ability to veto the election by the cardinals)

hawk

 

[Gorgias]

No, they do not.

Cardinals do not have the authority to select a pope?

Yes, I know that “various methods” have existed, historically. I’m talking about today. The best argument I’ve heard in this thread, however, is that cardinals (who were historically from Italy) had the right to elect a bishop of Rome. (That argument kind of goes away a bit, though, today, given the multi-national makeup of the college of cardinals.)

 

[philipl]

It probably has more to do with location in todays world. Its not like you can move the Vatican and so much of the infrastructure of the church is there.

 

[tafan2]

I do not know why people cannot understand this. The Bishop Of Rome is the head of the Church. The Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ. The Bishop of Rome is Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. All of the Pope’s authority over the universal church stems from him being the Bishop of Rome. Not the other way around. The Cardinal Electors are acting as the clergy of the Roman Diocese and electing their Bishop.
This is not difficult.

 

[tafan2]

I will add, that the title Cardinal comes directly from the term incardinated. Which is what happens in any diocese when a priest becomes a official member of that diocese clergy, they are incardinated.

Incardination and excardination - Wikipedia

Maybe that helps in understanding of a papal election.

 

[steve-b]

Pathway2:

Given that the pope is biblical for Jesus chose Peter as essentially the prime minister of his church.Why should it be that the pope is to be the bishop of Rome, why Not the Bishop of Jerusalem or in Istanbul?

The Vatican stated in 2006:

English:

Without claiming to consider the complex historical question of the title of Patriarch in all its aspects, it can be stated from the historical point of view that the ancient Patriarchates of the East, set by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and of Calcedonia (451), they were related to a fairly clearly circumscribed territory, when the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, as part of the imperial ecclesiastical system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was understood as the Patriarch of the West. Inversely, Rome favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal seats: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title of “Patriarch of the West”, the IV Council of Constantinople (869-70), the IV Council of the Lateran (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs .

Vico, regarding the underlined, there needs to be qualification

then Card Ratzinger addressed this (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )

The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[porthos11]

dochawk:

No, they do not.

Cardinals do not have the authority to select a pope?

Yes, I know that “various methods” have existed, historically. I’m talking about today. The best argument I’ve heard in this thread, however, is that cardinals (who were historically from Italy) had the right to elect a bishop of Rome. (That argument kind of goes away a bit, though, today, given the multi-national makeup of the college of cardinals.)

It does not really go away. A Cardinal has a title to a church in Rome (he is “incardinated” so to speak, in Rome). Yes, the makeup is now multinational, but the principle remains. The “priests” and “deacons” of Rome elect their Bishop. So for example, our very own Cardinal Marc Ouellet, when he elects the Pope, is doing so as Priest of Santa Maria in Traspontina in Rome. Ouellet, of course, is Canadian, but as a Cardinal, is a “priest” of the Diocese of Rome.

The Pope is the Pope because he is, firstly, the Bishop of Rome. Or, to emphasize it, he is the Bishop of Rome. It is because the Primacy is attached to Rome that Rome’s Bishop is the Pope, or more precisely, the Supreme Pontiff. Unless the man is Bishop of Rome, he will never be Pope.

 

[Gorgias]

So for example, our very own Cardinal Marc Ouellet, when he elects the Pope, is doing so as Priest of Santa Maria in Traspontina in Rome. Ouellet, of course, is Canadian, but as a Cardinal, is a “priest” of the Diocese of Rome.

So, Cardinal Archbishops are incardinated in two dioceses? Their home diocese, in which they exercise ministry, and their titular parish in Rome?

 

[twf]

In a sense. It’s a special case. Obviously the Roman titular Church is more of an honorific than anything, but it’s an important symbol connecting the cardinals to the Roman clergy.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

So for example, our very own Cardinal Marc Ouellet, when he elects the Pope, is doing so as Priest of Santa Maria in Traspontina in Rome. Ouellet, of course, is Canadian, but as a Cardinal, is a “priest” of the Diocese of Rome.

So, Cardinal Archbishops are incardinated in two dioceses? Their home diocese, in which they exercise ministry, and their titular parish in Rome?

You can say that. Of course, the Roman position is now more titular than anything; Roman powers of governance were abolished for Cardinals a long time ago. But their Roman churches still bear their coats of arms and Cardinal-Priests are still encouraged to say Mass and preach in their churches whenever they get the opportunity.

 

[porthos11]

Maybe that helps in understanding of a PayPal election.

Heh heh.

Speech to text?

 

[dochawk]

Cardinals do not have the authority to select a pope?

Correct.

“Pope” is not an office in its own right, it is a term that eventually came to be used to describe the Bishop of Rome

hawk

 

[tafan2]

No, phone typing, it fixes mistakes to the wrong things at times.

 

[tafan2]

I never thought of it, but yes.

 

[twf]

More specifically, Pope of Rome… there is also the Pope of Alexandria (well, technically three popes of Alexandria at present…).