St. Peter was first bishop of Jerusalem for three years, and then in the year 36 became the bishop of Antioch for six years.  It was only until the year 42 that St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome. And I am not so sure that St. Peter did not send a bishop to Rome to govern things before he arrived there.  So, the question is fair enough, When St. Peter was bishop of Antioch, was he then at that time the bishop of Rome in actu or in potentia?  In theory one could be the bishop of Rome and never step foot in Rome.  And I am still uncertain at what point the Electee becomes the Bishop of Rome.  I think at some point the candidate says 'Accepto' or something along those lines.

This thread has caused me to think about levels/degrees of potency in relation to the papacy, something I did not consider before.

on March 19, 1715, Pope Clement XI released the Edict Ex Illa Die, stating that Catholics must use "Tianzhu" instead of "Shangdi" for Christianity's God.

taken from wikipedia


Also

On 19 March 1715, Pope Clement XI issued the papal bull Ex illa die, which officially condemned Chinese rites.[19] In response, the Kangxi Emperor officially forbade Christian missions in China, as they were "causing trouble".[26]

Clement XI banned the rites in 1704. In 1742, Benedict XIV reaffirmed the ban and forbade debate.[1]

In 1939, after two centuries, the Holy See re-assessed the issue. Pius XII issued a decree on 8 December 1939, authorizing Chinese Catholics to observe the ancestral rites and participate in Confucius-honoring ceremonies.[1] The general principle of sometimes admitting native traditions even into the liturgy of the church, provided that such traditions harmonize with the true and authentic spirit of the liturgy, was proclaimed by the Second “Vatican Council (1962–65).[6]


Both from wiki, also interesting how Pope Pius 12th did another 'dubious' thing during his reign... is Ladislaus still on the forum?