AHC: Wandering Papacy

[Pischinovski]

with a POD during the migration period, make the title of the head of the western church not fixed to one bishopric (for example Rome), but instead let the title wander around europe.

P.S. things like "the bishop of rome in avingon" don't count because it is still tied to the bishopric of Rome.

[Basileus Giorgios]

How late are we delaying "Migration period" for?

One idea that could work is to have the Papacy and Italian bishops forced to sign up by Justinian (or some other reconquering Eastern Emperor) to a doctrinal wording acceptable to the eastern Churches but not to the West, in an attempt to enforce Church unity within the Roman Empire- essentially, a more successful attempt at what Justinian spent his reign trying to do.

The Western Church, led by a Bishop claiming to be the rightful Patriarch of Rome but seeking to avoid heresy, would then find itself attached to the Frankish kingdom, following the movement of the Frankish monarchs initially, but eventually settling down to its own moving routine. Initially this would take in Francia, but perhaps could expand to include Iberia, Britain and Germany. Italy, meanwhile, would be locked into a primarily Eastern orbit, with doctrine always set by activist Emperors in Constantinople with the aim of holding together the Church of the Empire.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Part of the problem is that the pope is only important if he is the Biishop of Rome. His whole authority evolves from his being the spiritual and institutional descendant of Peter. If the pope moves out of rome, he can no longer claim to be THE leader of the church, but only A leader. In particular, sleveral local metropolitans will gradually free themselves from the ,,pope,,s authority. You wwould likely end up with autonomous ,,national,, churches, possibly very like otls eastern orthodox.

[Marko]

Why not newly elected popes remaining in their bishphorics? That way the papcy could move with each election (theoreticaly).

[HistorianofAlt]

Originally Posted by Marko

Why not newly elected popes remaining in their bishphorics? That way the papcy could move with each election (theoreticaly).

Once again, the Pope is the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church because he is the Bishop of ROME and thus the successor to St. Peter.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Part of the problem is that the pope is only important if he is the Biishop of Rome. His whole authority evolves from his being the spiritual and institutional descendant of Peter. If the pope moves out of rome, he can no longer claim to be THE leader of the church, but only A leader. In particular, sleveral local metropolitans will gradually free themselves from the ,,pope,,s authority. You wwould likely end up with autonomous ,,national,, churches, possibly very like otls eastern orthodox.

Unless Rome itself is destroyed or becomes intolerable to rule from.

[Sian]

Originally Posted by Marko

Why not newly elected popes remaining in their bishphorics? That way the papcy could move with each election (theoreticaly).

As far as i remember its first rather recently, that the pope have been an Bishop before becomming a pope

[The Ubbergeek]

On a related note, did the eastern grand patriarches move too at some times? Was there times where one or many got pushed away, moved in exile, etc?

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

On a related note, did the eastern grand patriarches move too at some times? Was there times where one or many got pushed away, moved in exile, etc?

From about the middle of the sixth century you get parallel Chalcedonian and Monophysite (yes, I know that term is anachronistic) bishops of Alexandria- that may be true for Antioch too, but don't quote me on this.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

http://www.lyricstime.com/pirates-of...ne-lyrics.html
Just change a few words....