The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1901-11-16
AN AMERICAN PoPEP
Serious Consideration of the Transfer
of st. Peters Chair to New York.

T.. Z .
Gondon Tablet)
The question in what sense the pa
pacy is united to the bishopric of the
local Roman church is discussed in the
pages of the Irish Ecclesiastical Rec
ord by Father Pope of Hugely. The
following comprises the bulk of his
argument:
Such change, startling as it is, is
not inconceivable. We may not al
ways Be blessed with pontiffs of the
stamp or Leo XIII; without a recur-
renee of the dark periods of the pa
pacy, we may yet have pontiffs whose
ken is not so far-reaching, whose SYM
| pathies are not so all-embracing as we
could desire; it may we'll be that the
New World, through no fault of its
| own, finds itself out of touch with the
| spiritual head of Christendom. Mod
| ern views may in time so predominant
that the large number of members of
the sacred college may hail from
America, there may spring up a feel
ing that an up-to-date pope, in other
words an American pope, would be an
advantage. All this is possible, but is
it possible that the holy see should be
removed from Rome to New York?
that the successor of st. Peter should
no longer be bishop of Rome but bish-
op of New York?
THE question really depends for it's
answer upon another much disputed
point. By what right is the bishop of
Rome the successor of st. Peter? Was
it merely because st. Peters sagacity
led him to choose Rome for his see
as being the future mistress of the
world? or are we to say that he was
divinely led to do so? We certainly
have no New Testament authority for
claiming a Divine command to st.
Peter on the subject, nor even a Di-
vine ratification of his choice. And vet
If we concede that it was merely
choice based on human perspicacity, |
on what grounds can we deny the pos |
Sibility of New York becoming the see |
of Peters successor?
This was a question which natural |
ly attracted good deal of attention |
during the papal residence of Avignon.
The Roman people clamored for the re-
turn of the popes. and they urged the
rights of their city. Yet
many of these pontiffs would have
been glad to be able to call Avignon
the papal see had it been possible The
truth is that they never seemed to
conceive of such a change as possible
The idea that Rome was divineIy, and
therefore inalienably, chosen as the
see of the Fisherman and his success
ors, appears repeatedly in papal docu-
ments. Il
THE sentiment is everywhere the
same, but the grounds assigned for 1t
vary. Gelasius, Boniface VIII and
Nicolas [ simply declare that it was a
Divine act; Innocent III says that it
IS not due to st. Peters initiative. but
hat he was led by a Divine revelation
% remove from Antioch; while the
given us by ST Ambrose
night imply that the choice was st.
Peters. ratified by the Divine admoni-
ion he received to go back to Rome
md die. Hence theologians differ much .
when discussing the question of the
Ll1enability of the primacy of the
hurch from the Roman bishopric.
Still, when all is said. we have not
'ot beyond the realm of tradition and
pln1on. Have we any grounds a
riori, as well as a posteriori for
that, if the world were to
asst 10000 years longer it would still (
ee the successor of the Fisherman
nthroned at Rome?
When we reflect upon the vicissi-
ldes through which Rome has passed 4
hen we recall the low ebb to which il
as sunk. and that not merely morally Z
ut physically, it is hard to shut our y
yes to the clear designs of Providence,
,hlch willed that the City of the Seven
ILLS should be called and should be
The Eternal City,
One day, perhaps, a son of Amer
"a soil will fill Peters chair, but we
link it impossible that successor Of g
t. Peter will ever set up his see on a
merica's SOIL