# Why Not The Archbishop of Rome? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 13, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844 "2013-03-13T19:42:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/1 "2013-03-13T19:42:07Z")
One of the pope’s titles is the Bishop of Rome. I was always curious why he wasn’t the Archbishop of Rome. I would think that Rome has both the size and historical importance within the church to qualify as an archdiocese. So, why isn’t the pope the Archbishop of Rome (or, if more appropriate, why isn’t Rome an archdiocese)? Thanks, Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/2 "2013-03-13T20:09:46Z")
The diocese of Rome is within the ecclesiastical province of Rome (which also includes a bunch of other dioceseseses.) The Pope is both the Bishop of the diocese of Rome and the Archbishop of the province of Rome. Edit: But as I understand it, all of his other titles and offices are by virtue of him being the Bishop of Rome. Everything else is gravy. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/3 "2013-03-13T22:13:26Z")
To add to that, deacons, priests, and bishops are all ordained to those positions, and so those positions have sacramental significance. “Archbishop”, by contrast, is a merely administrative position. So it makes sense to refer to the Pope as “bishop of Rome”, because that highlights the sacramentally-significant fact that he’s a bishop, but it’s redundant to refer to him as an archbishop, because “pope” is a much more important title. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/4 "2013-03-13T22:36:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > To add to that, deacons, priests, and bishops are all ordained to those positions, and so those positions have sacramental significance. “Archbishop”, by contrast, is a merely administrative position. So it makes sense to refer to the Pope as “bishop of Rome”, because that highlights the sacramentally-significant fact that he’s a bishop, but it’s redundant to refer to him as an archbishop, because “pope” is a much more important title. Are bishops “ordained”? I thought only priests were “ordained”. And isn’t Rome a bit small to have an Archbishop? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/5 "2013-03-13T22:42:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Are bishops “ordained”? I thought only priests were “ordained”. > > And isn’t Rome a bit small to have an Archbishop? Bishop is an ordained post. Arch-bishop isn’t, bishops are appointed to arch-bishopric, and then stop being arch-bishops when they step down, but they remain bishops till death (and beyond, I guess, according to the Church anyways). ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/6 "2013-03-13T22:49:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And isn’t Rome a bit small to have an Archbishop? Rome is full of arches. Why shouldn’t one of them be a bishop? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/7 "2013-03-14T01:57:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I thought only priests were “ordained”. Technically yes. Bishops are consecrated. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/8 "2013-03-14T02:08:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Technically yes. Bishops are consecrated. In the Catholic church, deacons, priests and bishops are all ordained. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/9 "2013-03-14T02:50:18Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Technically yes. Bishops are consecrated. > [@UDS](#): > > In the Catholic church, deacons, priests and bishops are all ordained. Both statements are true. Laying on hands to impart holy orders constitutes ordination, regardless of to which order the ordinee is being ordained to. But: – Deacons are “made” (_facere_ is the verb used to describe ordination of a deacon). – Priests are “ordained” (no special term). – Bishops are “consecrated” (even though it is ordination to a new order). Note that everything else, from Monsignor to Cardinal and Pope, describes an office or honor, not an order of clergy like the three above. There may be a formal cereony installing the new monsignor, archbishop, cardinal, or whatever. But they are not regarded as being sacramental acts through which the Holy Spirit works, as ordinations are. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-the-archbishop-of-rome/652844/10 "2013-03-14T03:56:52Z")
From: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese\_of\_RomeBishop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_RomeBishop) Further information: Pope and Pope (word) The bishop of the Diocese of Rome has, in the first place, the title of Bishop of Rome, the basis for all his other titles. Those officially listed for him are: ``` Vicar of Jesus Christ Successor of the Prince of the Apostles Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church Primate of Italy, as his see is the most distinguished of the Church in Italy **Metropolitan and Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome** Sovereign of the State of Vatican City since its establishment by the Lateran Treaty in 1929 Servant of the Servants of God[emphasis added] ``` So, yes, the Pope is an Archbishop. But tradition doesn’t play up that role most likely because ‘Pope’ is such a higher title. After all, why use the title that says he convenes a local group of bishops (i.e., the role of an archbishop) when he has the title that conveys he’s the supreme authority of all bishops (i.e., the freakin’ pope!).