Talk:Bishop of Rome

Primacy among the patriarchs? I don't think so

"The view that the Bishop of Rome has primacy of honor, first in apostolic succession, has unofficial currency in the Anglican communion and in a few other Protestant churches." Supposing that the statement is not Roman hogwash, then it needs some sourcing. Would someone improve this? --Wetman 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger

As it stands this article does not contain any information not already found in the article "pope". Also "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome" mean the basically the same thing, with the few differences really able to be covered in one article, I would think. So, for this to be an independent article I would just ask what purpose it serves that cannot (or is not) already encompassed by the article on the Pope. Lostcaesar 11:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the best bet here is just to have Bishop of Rome redirect to Pope, and add a section to Pope which covers his historical position a the Bishop of Rome. Kkubasik 08:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'Pope' is more of a Catholic POV that assumes his primacy while 'Bishop of Rome' is a more Eastern Orthodox and technical POV that assumes his local authority.

The 'Bishop of Rome' and the 'Pope' have sometimes not always been the same thing. Such as when the Pope was in French Avignon (?) not Rome. And when there were two or more Popes.

But one article is easier then two.

Neutralaccounting 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When the pope was living in Avignon, he was still claiming to be the Bishop of Rome. He just lived in Avignon. When there was more than one person claiming to be Pope, the claimants were both saying that they were rightful Bishop of Rome. Thus, in the cases you mentioned, Pope and Bishop of Rome still are the same thing. Pmadrid 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be merged. The bishop of Rome is the pope. Period.
NewYork1956 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If this discusion is still open then no, not another merger. I've just been re-directed here from Archdiocese of Rome, where I wanted information about the structure and organization; it isn't here, or in Pope either. I'd like to sort it out, and disappearing this page is no help. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Most of the various titles of the Pope have their own articles, and it especially makes sense for this one. Dgf32 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pope is a title of the Bishop of Rome, not the other way around. Gavin (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced

I do not think that the Bishop of Rome and Pope articles should be separated, seeing as how the offices are one and the same. Indeed, the pope is elected so by being elected the bishop of Rome. These two articles should neither be separated because of Protestant, or general non-Catholic, views. Most Protestants, to the extent of my knowledge, refer to the current holder of the papacy as Pope Benedict XVI, as do all media sources. I am not showing preferential treatment here - I am an atheist for crying out loud. Wikipedia should be known for accurracy and not its users' personal opinions, no offence intended. Tajm 19:22, 2 March 2007

It sounds like almost everyone's agreed that a merger is appropriate. Let's do it. Timotheos 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Avignon

Did the Avignon Popes claim to be bishops of Rome? --84.20.17.84 08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ofcourse. The See of Rome is the Holy See made by St. Peter, all his successors have to be Bishop's of Rome. Gavin Scott 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)