P
Pathway2
Guest
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?
- Status
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Peter knew that his mission was to go to Rome, the center of the known world at that time, to become the Bishop of Rome. He knew that he would be martyred there. The Successors of St. Peter as the head of Christ’s Church on earth must, therefore, be the Bishop of Rome.
B
bassmansteiny
Guest
Well, this is my understanding. The Church of Rome is the Primacy of the Catholic Faith. If you look at the very early Church Fatthers, for example Ignatious of Antioch, taught that. Per tradition Peter was martyed in Rome and he was the first Pope, St Peter’s Basilica was built over his grave. For a period of time the Popes were in France for their safety, still Roman Bishop though. St. Catherine convinced the Pope to return to Rome.
Popes have come from various places, not just Italy or Rome. That is part of the tradition that they become the bishop of Rome .
Not sure if that answers your question, but maybe it will get you closer to an answer.
Popes have come from various places, not just Italy or Rome. That is part of the tradition that they become the bishop of Rome .
Not sure if that answers your question, but maybe it will get you closer to an answer.
V
Vico
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
I guess one answer would be “imagine how difficult it would be to move the Vatican from city to city, each time a new bishop is named Pope!”
As others have mentioned, Rome is seen to be Peter’s primary see. Therefore, as the apostle in charge, Peter exercised leadership in Rome. Subsequently, his successors exercise their leadership there, as well. Therefore, whenever a bishop is elected to the papacy, he governs from Rome (and takes over the episcopal responsibilities there).
In a way, it’s not entirely unlike the situation of the President of the U.S. – when a person is elected president, he also assumes the duty of ‘Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces’. Likewise, when a bishop is elected to the papacy, he also assumes the duty of ‘Bishop of Rome’.
Does that help?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Because the bishop of Rome is successor to Peter in his capacity as leader of the church.
In other words, the bishop of Rome is not merely a successor to Peter in his capacity as bishop (for Peter appointed many bishops and elders [priests], as did the other Apostles). Rather, the bishop of Rome is successor to Peter in his capacity as chief bishop, as steward of the church (represented by the “keys”).
So the Pope is always tied to Rome insofar as the line of succession remains in Rome. If, say, Italy blew off the face of the Earth, there would still be someone appointed to fulfill the office of Peter in his capacity as shepherd of the church. If something like this were to happen, it would be an interesting question, for it would have to be exceptionally clear that a bishop was being elected in succession to the office of Pope. And so it suggests that being bishop of Rome is not inherently tied to being Pope, insofar as if Rome went out of existence, there would still be a successor to Peter’s role as leader.
In other words, the bishop of Rome is not merely a successor to Peter in his capacity as bishop (for Peter appointed many bishops and elders [priests], as did the other Apostles). Rather, the bishop of Rome is successor to Peter in his capacity as chief bishop, as steward of the church (represented by the “keys”).
So the Pope is always tied to Rome insofar as the line of succession remains in Rome. If, say, Italy blew off the face of the Earth, there would still be someone appointed to fulfill the office of Peter in his capacity as shepherd of the church. If something like this were to happen, it would be an interesting question, for it would have to be exceptionally clear that a bishop was being elected in succession to the office of Pope. And so it suggests that being bishop of Rome is not inherently tied to being Pope, insofar as if Rome went out of existence, there would still be a successor to Peter’s role as leader.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
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.
C
Canvas
Guest
Technically, the Cathedral of the Pope is not even in in the Vatican. It is St. John Lateran in Rome, although it is legally like an embassy of the Vatican, with extraterritorial status, pursuant to the 1929 Lateran treaty that created the Vatican City State.
Last edited:
Actually, it is. The Pope is Pope because he is the bishop of Rome. He is not Bishop of Rome because he is the Pope.
Not even the loss of Italy or Rome would change this. If Rome were blown off the map and never rebuilt, the office of Bishop of Rome would remain. The See would of course be titular at this point, but it makes no difference where the office is concerned. Even in the absence of a real territory, the Diocese of Rome, and therefore the Episcopate of Rome, will still exist, as a titular see.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
The point I was making is that the office of Pope is not inherently connected to a physical location.
The Pope does not have to be located in Rome.
If Italy dissolved into the sea (or whatever) and there was no more Rome, then there would have to be some way of maintaining the succession, but it would not be a literal physical continuity.
Part of the confusion is that people talk about apostolic succession in different ways. Some people mean that the Apostle appointed a bishop, who appoints a bishop, and so on. But not necessarily, because that bishop (or Apostle) may have died before appointing one.
The Pope does not have to be located in Rome.
If Italy dissolved into the sea (or whatever) and there was no more Rome, then there would have to be some way of maintaining the succession, but it would not be a literal physical continuity.
Part of the confusion is that people talk about apostolic succession in different ways. Some people mean that the Apostle appointed a bishop, who appoints a bishop, and so on. But not necessarily, because that bishop (or Apostle) may have died before appointing one.
Last edited:
It’s not about location, but that’s not what you said. You stated the Papacy was not tied in with the office of Bishop of Rome. It fact, it is.
Even when the Popes lived in Avignon, France, they were Bishop of Rome.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Right, but if there was NO more Rome…
That’s the point I was getting at.
There wouldn’t be a bishop “of Rome” if there were no Rome or no Roman peoples…
That’s the point I was getting at.
There wouldn’t be a bishop “of Rome” if there were no Rome or no Roman peoples…
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Because that’s sort of what the Pope is by definition.
P
phil19034
Guest
I guess in THEORY, a sitting Pope could relocate the Papal See.
For example: let’s say while the Pope was traveling, a nuclear bomb blows up Rome (God forbid). The Pope would not be able to return.
So let’s say he settles in Buenos Aires**. He could then transfer the sitting archbishop to another dioceses and establish himself as Bishop of Buenos Aires.
So in THEORY he could do that because there is only tradition (lower case) which says the Successor of Peter must say in Rome.
However, there are very good reasons why the Successor of Peter stays in Rome.
By the way, I honestly, I think this was contributing issue between Rome and Constantinople after the fall of Western Roman Empire. Many people in the East felt that the City of Constantinople then became the most powerful city in the world, so the Vicar of Christ should be moved to that city.
**NOTE: I picked Buenos Aires because that city has more Minor Basilicas than any other city in the world, besides Rome.
For example: let’s say while the Pope was traveling, a nuclear bomb blows up Rome (God forbid). The Pope would not be able to return.
So let’s say he settles in Buenos Aires**. He could then transfer the sitting archbishop to another dioceses and establish himself as Bishop of Buenos Aires.
So in THEORY he could do that because there is only tradition (lower case) which says the Successor of Peter must say in Rome.
However, there are very good reasons why the Successor of Peter stays in Rome.
- that’s where the bones of Peter and Paul are.
- the infrastructure is already in place. To relocate the See of Peter without serious need would be incredulously expensive
- tradition says that the office Supreme Pontiff is tied to the diocese, because the diocese. Some titles are canonically tied to the diocese, not solely tied to the person. The Supreme Pontiff is one of those titles, which is tied to the Diocese of Rome. It would require a cannon law change and a demotion of the Papal See of Rome to a regular Metropolitan See or Patriarchal See.
By the way, I honestly, I think this was contributing issue between Rome and Constantinople after the fall of Western Roman Empire. Many people in the East felt that the City of Constantinople then became the most powerful city in the world, so the Vicar of Christ should be moved to that city.
**NOTE: I picked Buenos Aires because that city has more Minor Basilicas than any other city in the world, besides Rome.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
As others have said, the most fundamental title of the Papa is Bishop of Rome. In fact, in the early Church the indefectibility and infallibility of the Roman Church are much more explicit than that of its bishop.
In one of his address on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (it’s also in one of his books), I remember Pope Benedict discussing that while Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people, Rome was symbolic of the capital of the whole world and many diverse peoples passed through it. Rome was a more fitting capital for the Church which had been opened up to all people, not just Jews, and was destined to cover the whole world.
In one of his address on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (it’s also in one of his books), I remember Pope Benedict discussing that while Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people, Rome was symbolic of the capital of the whole world and many diverse peoples passed through it. Rome was a more fitting capital for the Church which had been opened up to all people, not just Jews, and was destined to cover the whole world.
And as I said in the previous reply. That would be false.
The Diocese of Rome would effectively become a titular see. Even though only in title, the Diocese, and therefore, the Bishop of Rome would still exist, as he is absolutely essential to the Church, even though he would no longer have a territory. Even the Bishop of a titular see is as much a bishop of that see as any bishop with a territory.
Last edited:
No, it is generally accepted that the Papacy’s ties to the Bishopric of Rome is of divine origin, not disciplinary. A Pope does not have the power to change this. A Pope can move, yes, even long-term. But his physical location cannot divorce him from his office as Bishop of Rome.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
If the Vicar of Christ cannot be theologically separated from the Bishopric of Rome, then yes, Rome would become a Titular See and the Pope would still have the title Bishop of Rome and perhaps also be Bishop of the See he’s living in (since historically, there were Bishops who were Bishop of more than one see)
G
Genesis315
Guest
Pope Pius IX addressed the issue of the primacy being moved from Rome in the letter Ad Apostolicae in 1851 where he definitively condemned the error that a General Council (which would of course include the Pope) could transfer the primatial See.
If your Latin’s good, the document starts on page 61 here.
If your Latin’s good, the document starts on page 61 here.
- Status