Why is the Pope always European?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scanner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scanner

Guest
I have been thinking about the pontiff a lot this week for obvious reasons (publicity) and how he relates politically to the world.

Is there a reason that God’s representative on earth is always European? I truly don’t know and I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.

Thanks in advance
 
There was going to be a Pontiff from Antarctica once, but she later had to be disqualified.

I believe there have been a few early Popes from Africa, but, recently, only for the reason that that who the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium have chosen these men is that the Pope is European. It is not for any reason in that it is not a qualification, it just has happen to be that way. Also, I think by modern standards, the first Pope was Asian.
 
There is nothing at all to preclude a pope from being from anywhere in the world. In fact, if I remember correctly, there were 3 popes from North Africa in the early Church. In modern times Cardinal Arinze was deemed to be a “runner” in the speculations about the next pope after JPII.
Would you like an American pope?😉
 
I was talking to a priest about this one day and he said a big part is that Europeans can read, write, and speak many languages, unlike many non-Europeans.
Probably has some part, but not all.
Peace and Love
 
Freshman88 said:
“The faith is Europe and Europe is the faith.” - Belloc
Click to expand...
It is a good thing that Mr. Belloc did not live to see his beloved Europe become a secular, second rate power in world affairs, and an apologist for Islam that he so aptly predicted would ultimately attempt to destroy Christianity and western civilization.
 
Home field advantage? Same for Vatican II. (Who had the most influence?)
 
Scanner said:
Is there a reason that God’s representative on earth is always European? I truly don’t know and I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Home field advantage?

Same goes for Vatican II. (Who had the most influence?)
 
Don’t forget the Syrian popes in the 7-9th centuries or so.

It was for 400 or so years that the Pope was just an Italian. Pope John Paul II broke that long standing custom.
 
ora_pro_nobis said:
There is nothing at all to preclude a pope from being from anywhere in the world. In fact, if I remember correctly, there were 3 popes from North Africa in the early Church. In modern times Cardinal Arinze was deemed to be a “runner” in the speculations about the next pope after JPII.
Would you like an American pope?😉
Click to expand...
Only if he were American Indian…😉
 
Keep in mind that the odds are always stacked in favor of the Italians because there are so many more Italian cardinals than from everywhere else, because they are involved in the administration of the church in Rome.
 
I think it was John Allen (the NCR reporter from the Vatican) who said something to the effect that a US pope was unlikely because the US is seen as the biggest political and military power and if the pope was from here, there would be a tendency to view him as a “puppet” of the US. I don’t know if this is true, but it’s one possible explanation.
 
because until early in the last century there were few cardinals outside Europe. the movie and book the Cardinal, about an American priest’s career, made the point that American cardinals usually missed the conclave in the early days of ocean travel because of the long timing of the sea voyage.

I think and hope the time is right for a non-European pope next time, but let’s enjoy the one we have for as long as God is pleased to grant his service.
 
drafdog said:
Wasn’t the first one an Israeli?

Matthew
Click to expand...
Exactly!! 😃

At least a handful from Syrian and a few from Africa… But after the “whirlwind of the desert” it was a bit more difficult, Asia and Africa were cut off from the faith(literally). Also the separation of Eastern Orthodoxy. Statistically, Roman Catholicism through history has been primarily found mostly in Europe up until a few centuries ago. Although the Americas have some considerable Catholic populations, they are relatively new in the big picture. Also the pope until recently had temporal powers over the Papal States and an Italian would seem to be a better choice. Although, modern transportation and communication is making a big difference in the possibility on a non-European.
 
Many good reasons (and historical clarifications re: Easterners and Africans) have been given, but let’s not overlook the obvious: the pope is the bishop of Rome. It makes sense for an Asian to be bishop of Da Nang (and even more sense for him to be specifically Vietnamese); so, also, it makes sense for a European to be bishop of Rome (and even more sense for him to be specifically Italian). The job, of course, has many levels, at the highest level of which we see the value of non-Italian popes, but we shouldn’t forget the lowest and most obvious reason for Europeans to hold the post.
 
Most of the Cardinals are European, and the greatest number from any one country is the Italian contingent. Also, he is the Bishop of Rome. Given that, It is in a sense suprising that we have had two non-Italians in a row.

I know that I would be suprised if a bishop from Japan was named as the Arch-bishop of Galveston Houston.

I acknowledge that the Pope is a unique bishop in that he is also the visible head of the universal Church, but as I said, he is also the Bishop of Rome, so I believe some consideration should be payed to the concerns of the Catholics in Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top