Popes' Roles in History

Commenting on some discussions over at Disputations, Fr. Jim Tucker of Dappled Things has some interesting comments concerning ecclesiology and the historical role of the pope:

If you were a Catholic of a thousand years ago, the Pope probably wouldn't enter into your mind much at all. You would know that he existed. But unless you lived in Rome or had made pilgrimage there, you wouldn't know what he looked like. Unless you were a king or high-ranking bishop or subject of the Papal States, the Holy Father's actions would probably never affect you personally. Probably most people wouldn't even have known his name, except for the priests who had to whisper it in the Canon of the Mass.

But who would tell you how to worship and make the rules for liturgy? You just would do what your ancestors did. If some abuse or other had crept in, the local bishop or a local synod would make the necessary adjustment. Who would tell you what to believe? On the broad public scale, the local pastors of the Church would repeat the teachings of the Church to each generation. On the more closed-in, subtle points, the theologians and monks would make the arguments among themselves.

I'm not saying that this is the best way to run the Church. But I am saying that the Church got along this way just fine for centuries.

We are certainly living in a much different time. In the past, the Pope did not always appoint bishops or have a large say in the goings on in particular dioceses. Times today require some greater measures. But I have encountered many people who believe the Pope is some sort of super-bishop and our bishops are merely branch managers of Rome, Inc. The bishops are not vicars of the pope.