Talk:Diocese of Rome
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
We need a way to distinguish between the dioceses which are Immediately Subject to Rome, and those that are within the ecclesiastical territory of Rome. In this capacity Rome is no different then the other archdioceses, in that the relationship is exactly the same as the other Metropolitan archdioceses. Links for the suffragan dioceses should go here, for the dioceses which are immediately subject, it should go to the Holy See article.
Shouldn't this page be renamed to the Diocese of Rome? Isn't that what that church calls itself? Who calls it an archdiocese? Isn't archbishop, and for that matter patriarch, one of the more obscure titles of the Bishop of Rome? Rwflammang (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
In this context it is an archdiocese. The pope is a metropolitan of several dioceses just like all the other archbishops. Agreed, it is more obscure, but here, it's the important one. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- So, should I create a new article called Diocese of Rome which isn't just a redirect? Or should = = Archdiocese of Rome = = just be a section of that article? I prefer the second option personally. I see no reason why a list of suffragans needs its own article. Rwflammang (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Rome is a special case. It doesn't like to play by the rules. Holy See is already an article, but that talks primarily about the office of the Pope. Options that I can see are:
1. Merge with Holy See to discuss the metropolitan functions of the Pope. I think there is more then enough material there already.
2. Status quo, where you have a separate article to discuss the functions of the pope as a metropolitan. This article is already very, very nice, and obviously met a gaping need, as evidenced by how quickly it has filled out. It is here we can discuss the roles of the Suburbicarian sees, and the dioceses which are suffragans to the Archdiocese of Rome.
3. Rename to the Diocese of Rome, which ignores the distinctions between Rome and her suffragans. I'd sooner support a merge with Holy See, then renaming to the Diocese of Rome.
I would guess your objection to the name is because the title that is used most often is Bishop of Rome. However, I have never heard of his see as the Diocese of Rome, whatsoever. It's usually the Holy See. In this context the proper name is Archdiocese of Rome. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I support option 3. The disctinction can be made in the article. I dunno why you never heard of the diocese of Rome; its easy enough to find with Google. Archdiocese of Rome, not so much. Rwflammang (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- N.B. A search of the Catholic Encyclopedia turns up 10 references to the diocese of Rome, none to the archdiocese. Rwflammang (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. Sometime this week, I purpose to rename this article Diocese of Rome unless I hear a compelling argument against it. I'll make Archdiocese of Rome a redirect, as well as the two Roman Catholic (Archd|D)iocese of Rome titles. Rwflammang (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I attempted the move, but was unsuccessful. I have requested admin support here. Rwflammang (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
and others all around the world?
- What does it mean? It means that at present there are no dioceses which have suffragans. The reason I know this is because I've had to make a list of them all right here. List of Roman Catholic dioceses. Pope has many hats, Pope, Patriarch of the West, Metropolitan of Rome, and Bishop of Rome, which is unique. I really don't care to much about the nomenclature, but I would like the name of the article to indicate that Rome is in fact not a suffragan. which Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies. I removed the offending text from the article some time ago, and did not update this comment. If there are other suffragans around the world, they should be listed explicitly and not referred to as simply "others". The offending text can be seen in the list of suffragans here. Rwflammang (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are about the same thing, but they are about two different aspects of the same thing. Currently, Holy See is almost exclusively about that thing's international relations. This article is almost exclusively about its internal organization and ministry. I don't see a whole lot of overlap between the two articles, and I don't really see how a merge would improve either article. Rwflammang (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The article glosses the term "Supreme Pontiff" with the parenthetical phrase Pontifex Maximus, implying that the terms are equivalent. However, the English term "Supreme Pontiff" is almost always used to translate the Summus Pontifex, one of two Latin terms referring to the High Priest (Judaism), the other term being Sacerdos Magnus. Both terms for the title High Priest were commonly applied to bishops in ancient times. Indeed, Sacerdos magnus is applied to bishops generally to this day, while Summus Pontifex has come to be restricted almost always to refer to the pope. The office of the Jewish High priest is distinct from the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus, and the language of the article should be corrected to make that clear.
Later in the article, a bullet point says that the pope derives his authority as sovereign from the title Summus Pontifex. This is, of course, ridiculous, and it should be removed.
- You did not read the Pontifex Maximus article, Pontifex Maximus does translate as Supreme Pontiff. Also, the Roman Emperors (who held power through holding multiple titles including Pontifex Maximus) transfered the title to the Archbishop of Rome. As such you have acted ridiculously. Spshu (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you are right, and "supreme pontiff" can be used to translate pontifex maximus as well as summus pontifex, then we should avoid the term "supreme pontiff" and use the Latin titles. In any case, the pope derives no authority as sovereign from either title. Sovereign authority in Vatican City is ascribed to the diocesan bishop, or, sede vacante, to the college of cardinals. Rwflammang (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To quote from the article:
- thus the see is the Chair of Peter, in Rome according to Catholic position. From a historical Christian propective, it is the position of Patriarch of Rome, or the West, from which his authority comes from, but has recently dropped
Which seems to imply that the idea of the Chair of Peter is not as historical (or not as Christian?) as the idea of the Pentarchy. And yet the notion of the Pope sitting in the Chair of Peter is attested at least as early as the third century; Caecilian refers to it. As far as I know, the earliest documentation of anything that could arguably be like a Pentarchy is at least a century later during the ecumenical councils. And it is certainly the case that the Romans never thought of themselves as being a fifth of Pentarchy.
I propose that this sentence be dropped.
- The article can not just be writen from a Roman Catholic point of view. The Patriarch of Antioch is also consider the see or chair of Peter (an Eastern Rite Catholic Patriarch of that see joke that if Peter had not died in Rome then he would be head of the Catholic Church). Second, the title dropped was the Patriarch of the West/Rome as if you looked at the source. The Patriarchial title comes from the varies church councils that the Bishop of Rome condoned and represented the highest position in the united Christian Church. The Pentarchy was last Patriarchal set up before the split off of the Coptic and Orthodox branches leaving Rome the only Patriarch in its faction for some time. Since the other two Patriarchs under the previous Petrine sees theory of Patriarchal powers plus a major of the Council agreed to the Pentarchy Patriarchs.
This Council's recognition of the special powers of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch served as the basis of the theory of the three Petrine sees (Rome and Antioch were said to be founded by Saint Peter and Alexandria by his disciple Mark the Evangelist) that was later upheld, especially in Rome and Alexandria, in opposition to the theory of the five Pentarchy sees.
- How would claim that Rome held power under the Petrine See doesn't adknowledge Jerusalem's status? After all, Peter himself was appointed at Jerusalem. Also, a Latin Patriarch was appointed during the Crusades and currently by the Latin Pope.
The precedence among patriarchs is determined by the rank of their see, according to the old order of the five patriarchates, followed by Cilicia, then Babylon. Between several titulars of the same see but of different rites the order is that of the date of their preconization.
- That sentence should be restored. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)