Popes in Avignon

[DanteAlighieri]

Hello Dante, BTW, I liked your books! The poetry loses a lot in translation though …I spent a lot of time reading the commentary.

Anyway, it is not actually certain that there was no bishop in Rome before Peter or Paul arrived. We know for certain that there was a Christian community in place before Peter arrived but that is about all, it’s pretty vague, so it does no good to speak in absolutes either way.

There may (possibly) have been more than one bishop as well. The office of bishop was much more like a local pastor or missioner, the large extended diocesan structures came later.

The presence of an Apostle with the prestige of Saint Peter (or even Paul) would be just what was necessary to knit the communities together, if there was any isolation at all between them.

Michael

Thanks, but that wasn’t my point. I was answering the notion that the Bishop of Rome is such because he’s the pope, when in fact it is the other way around. I don’t know how far back there was a Bisopric of Rome.

Peace,
Dante

 

[clmowry]

In other words, the Pope is the Pope because he’s the Bishop of Rome. That there was no Bishopric of Rome until Peter got there in no way diminishes his primacy or the fact that he was the first Pope.

If you want to argue this any further, you will indeed be splitting hairs.

Peace,
Dante

Or alternatively, “The Bishop of Rome is the Pope because Peter was the First Bishop of Rome and it is Peter’s See that is that of the leader of the Church. i.e. Pope”

?

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

So how were these cities tended when the Popes resided in them, were the Popes regarded as bishops of those cities? Were they regarded bishops of those cities AND Rome simultaneously? (making them holders of multiple Sees) or were the Popes regarded as above all of that? I’d like to know.

It might be helpful to know what year the Canons were composed identifying that a Pope is always to be identified as the bishop of Rome. That information should certainly be available somewhere.

Anyway, I’m mostly just musing on this…

Michael

It’s an interesting question; I frankly don’t know the particulars of that.

The Avignon period is very interesting, given that the Church up until that point had functioned more or less as the legitimate government of Rome and the surrounding region, punctuated by various periods of this or that group sacking the city. Moving to Avignon had to look to a lot of Christians like giving up on their Roman heritage.

If anyone has any good references regarding the Avignon period they’d like to recommend, I’d certainly welcome them.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

It’s not true except on your condition that Peter was Bishop of Rome and Pope when he also became Bishop of RomeThe purpose is that he is not Pope because he is bishop of Rome. That’s a novel idea of yours - I find it bizarre that I have to defend the Catholic position here - his power (according to your church) is given by Jesus, not vested in being in Rome.It’s a distinction that needs to be made to stop people such as yourself confusing why he is Pope.It’s not therefore ‘splitting hairs’. The issue of him being Pope has nothing to do with being Bishop of Rome.Rome could be washed away into the sea and he’d still be Pope.

Actually…

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric.
In other words, the Pope is the Pope because he’s the Bishop of Rome. That there was no Bishopric of Rome until Peter got there in no way diminishes his primacy or the fact that he was the first Pope.

Frankly it’s wrong. Your own church says that he was head because he was chosen by Jesus. NOT because he was bishop of Rome…
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

This was done before he became bishop of Rome. He first became bishop of Antioch – according to your theory however he was not head of the church until he was bishop of Rome.

Any ‘hair-splitting’ is based on your re-working of Catholic history.

Your same article is mistaken here, too…
“It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor”
It contradicts history. Esuebius says that Peter chose his successor.

 

[Montalban]

Or alternatively, “The Bishop of Rome is the Pope because Peter was the First Bishop of Rome and it is Peter’s See that is that of the leader of the Church. i.e. Pope”

?

Chuck

Well this doesn’t work either, exactly, because Antioch was also his See.

Antioch, could have been where the Pope resided (if Peter had continued there) However some people seem to think that it’s only when he went to Rome can Catholics claim he was head of the church

 

[Montalban]

Thanks, but that wasn’t my point. I was answering the notion that the Bishop of Rome is such because he’s the pope, when in fact it is the other way around. I don’t know how far back there was a Bisopric of Rome.

Peace,
Dante

Your site says that they’re just nominating another bishop - and that the bishop of Rome becomes Pope. What other bishopric has a special college of Cardinals to nominate him?

It’s a common Catholic mistake to lower the office of Pope to that of just another bishop

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Frankly it’s wrong. Your own church says that he was head because he was chosen by Jesus. NOT because he was bishop of Rome…

snip

This was done before he became bishop of Rome. He first became bishop of Antioch – according to your theory however he was not head of the church until he was bishop of Rome.

Your site says that they’re just nominating another bishop - and that the bishop of Rome becomes Pope. What other bishopric has a special college of Cardinals to nominate him?

It’s a common Catholic mistake to lower the office of Pope to that of just another bishop

Montablban, with due respect, you are revealing your ignorance of this topic every time you dispute it.

Yes, Peter was installed by Christ as the earthly head of the Church long before there was a Bishopric of Rome. Once there was a Bishopric of Rome, however, the Successor of Peter (i.e., the next earthly head of the Church) was elected to that position. Once in that position, we call him the Pope.

Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not say that electing the Pope is akin to electing “just another bishop”; it says that the authority of the Papacy resides in the Bishop of Rome – that is, the Successor of Peter. Where you get this nonsense about Catholics “lowering the Papacy” is beyond me.

Finally, it’s irrelevant that Peter nominated a succesor – the Encyclopedia doesn’t say “no Pope has ever nominated a successor”, and neither did I.

And this:

This was done before he became bishop of Rome. He first became bishop of Antioch – according to your theory however he was not head of the church until he was bishop of Rome.

does not follow logically from what I said. Again, Peter’s primacy predates the existence of the Bishopric of Rome. That means Peter had his authority, given by Christ, before the Bishopric of Rome was created. Once there was a Bishopric of Rome, that authority was vested in whoever was elected to that Bishopric.

Why is this so difficult to swallow?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Montalban]

Yes, Peter was installed by Christ as the earthly head of the Church long before there was a Bishopric of Rome. Once there was a Bishopric of Rome, however, the Successor of Peter (i.e., the next earthly head of the Church) was elected to that position. Once in that position, we call him the Pope.

Actually he wasn’t called “Pope” until much later. Are you arguing he’s only a “Pope” when he’s called “Pope”?

Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopaedia does not say that electing the Pope is akin to electing “just another bishop”; it says that the authority of the Papacy resides in the Bishop of Rome – that is, the Successor of Peter.

He is not successor to Peter because he is Bishop of Rome. There is no tie in with a particular location, else Antioch could make a claim as being successors to Peter.

Finally, it’s irrelevant that Peter nominated a successor – the Encyclopaedia doesn’t say “no Pope has ever nominated a successor”, and neither did I.

Your site says that they can’t. I quoted it. My mistake, for which I apologise was not to reference it. It is the Catholic Encyclopaedia, although a different page therein.
“It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htm
It was an effort to show how the encyclopaedia makes errors with respect to the papacy. They have.

And this:
does not follow logically from what I said. Again, Peter’s primacy predates the existence of the Bishopric of Rome. That means Peter had his authority, given by Christ, before the Bishopric of Rome was created. Once there was a Bishopric of Rome, that authority was vested in whoever was elected to that Bishopric.

There were several places called “Chairs of Peter”.

Why is this so difficult to swallow?

Because it’s a nonsense to tie him to only one bishopric. That’s why they’re called “Papal Elections” not “Bishop of Rome Elections”. They even vote on a form which says “Eligo in summum pontificem” (I elect a supreme Pontiff) (not "I elect a Bishop of Rome)

Pope Innocent III was made Pope (February 21, 1198) AND THEN CONSECRATED BISHOP OF ROME THE FOLLOWING DAY!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
1191 The cardinal-deacon Giacinto Bobone (or Bobo-Orsini ) [1106 – 08 Jan 1198], who was elected Pope (Celestine III) on 30 March 1191, is ordained a priest, so that the next day he can be consecrated bishop of Rome.
safran-arts.com/42day/history/h4apr/h4apr13.html

DanteAlighieri, you are simply mistaken on this. You don’t become Bishop of Rome, and then Pope. You’re made Pope and then Bishop of Rome. You can be a successor to Peter in ANY bishopric - it’s just that your church has kept up a tradition - which has confused persons such as yourself.

 

[LSK]

Sorry, wrong there.

History tells another story.

Michael

You’re right - I gave too simplistic an answer - sorry!

 

[Deconi]

Well this doesn’t work either, exactly, because Antioch was also his See.

Antioch, could have been where the Pope resided (if Peter had continued there) However some people seem to think that it’s only when he went to Rome can Catholics claim he was head of the church

I think there’s merit in what you say Montalban, strangely enough

James was Bishop in Jerusalem when Peter was there settling the circumcision issue. Yet he was already, “Pope.” Paul even sought him out there and spent time with him, in spite of the fact that James was the bishop! Clear evidence of Peter’s Leader status (Pope) even though he was not in Rome.
(Acts)

I know a bit about the 3-way split but not enough to comment definitively. Bottom line, I’m just thinking out loud, as it were.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Actually he wasn’t called “Pope” until much later. Are you arguing he’s only a “Pope” when he’s called “Pope”?

Obviously not…see below.

He is not successor to Peter because he is Bishop of Rome. There is no tie in with a particular location, else Antioch could make a claim as being successors to Peter.

Not true – see below, re: the early Fathers.

Your site says that they can’t. I quoted it. My mistake, for which I apologise was not to reference it. It is the Catholic Encyclopaedia, although a different page therein.
“It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htm
It was an effort to show how the encyclopaedia makes errors with respect to the papacy. They have.

And, as before, it’s irrelevant if a Pope HAS named a successor.

There were several places called “Chairs of Peter”.

Because it’s a nonsense to tie him to only one bishopric. That’s why they’re called “Papal Elections” not “Bishop of Rome Elections”. They even vote on a form which says “Eligo in summum pontificem” (I elect a supreme Pontiff) (not "I elect a Bishop of Rome)

Who cares if there is more than one “Chair of Peter”? There’s only one See or Bishopric of Rome, and that is where Peter’s Authority was to reside.

Pope Innocent III was made Pope (February 21, 1198) AND THEN CONSECRATED BISHOP OF ROME THE FOLLOWING DAY!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
1191 The cardinal-deacon Giacinto Bobone (or Bobo-Orsini ) [1106 – 08 Jan 1198], who was elected Pope (Celestine III) on 30 March 1191, is ordained a priest, so that the next day he can be consecrated bishop of Rome.
safran-arts.com/42day/history/h4apr/h4apr13.html

Are you really going to criticize the accuracy of the Catholic Encyclopedia using Wikipedia as support?

I never once said there was never an exception to the rule; I just quoted the rule as it was cited.

More from the CE:

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V),** is *at present ***employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.

The Encyclopedia then goes on to cite about a dozen or so Church Fathers asserting the primacy of the Roman See.

Even in the earliest days of the Church, the Bishop of Rome – Peter was the first – was supreme to the other bishops.

The fact that Peter was a bishop did not change from the time he left Jerusalem to the time he died, regardless of where he was. He was a bishop in Antioch; he was a bishop on the road to Rome. This is not in dispute.

The issue here is simple: the Authority was given to Peter. Peter took that Authority with him wherever he went – ultimately, to Rome. Once there, he was THE Bishop of Rome, and all of his successors were also THE Bishop of Rome.

I am in no way alleging that Peter was not Pope until he was in Rome; rather, I am trying to explain to you that “Pope” and “Bishop of Rome” are terms which BECAME interchangeable, but the Authority has always rested with the Bishop of Rome. That we now call him “Pope” does not change this.

In fact, the term pope was once used with “greater latitude”; in the East it was applied to ordinary priests, while in the West it was primarily reserved for bishops. However,

Gregory VII finally prescribed that it [the title *Pope

] should be confined to the successors of Peter.

Do you see? The Authority was Peters, and once he became the Bishop of Rome, it was passed on to his successors. Period.

Peace,
Dante

 

[richardwy]

Was there ever a time, when the Popes were reigning in Avignon, when they were not still acting as Bishop of Rome?

Really bad centuries for the Church back then.

Belloc’s book on the reformation illuminates.

 

[clmowry]

Well this doesn’t work either, exactly, because Antioch was also his See.

Antioch, could have been where the Pope resided (if Peter had continued there) However some people seem to think that it’s only when he went to Rome can Catholics claim he was head of the church

Peter did not die, however, as Bishop of Antioch did he?

Chuck

 

[pprimeau1976]

Well this doesn’t work either, exactly, because Antioch was also his See.

Antioch, could have been where the Pope resided (if Peter had continued there) However some people seem to think that it’s only when he went to Rome can Catholics claim he was head of the church

The facts are that Christ viewed Peter as more than just one of the Apostles. Christ made Peter special authority by giving him the keys to the kingdom. After the apostles died we have Apostolic successors who come to be known as bishops. Given that there was an original Apostolic head, it would not be scandalous to think that there should be a modern Apostolic head as well.

The problem is who to choose. This is where it gets confusing because this is where tradition and Tradition are blurred - in my mind at least. It is no secret that even in the pre-Nicean times, the Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome were respected for their faithfulness. From what I have read, it just became customary that the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church. There is no one reason why this is so, there are many reasons. It is Peter’s church, it is Paul’s church, it is the church of *countless *martyrs, etc. etc.

These reasons among others are why I consider the Bishop of Rome to be the Pope/Successor of Peter. However, I do not think that this is Sacred Tradition that can never be changed.

 

[Montalban]

Peter did not die, however, as Bishop of Antioch did he?

Chuck

No. What of it? Even though he moved onto Rome from Avignon, it’s still a Chair of Peter.

Where’s it say that his special charism’s only passed on to a particular church - and that always has to be Rome?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Actually he wasn’t called “Pope” until much later. Are you arguing he’s only a “Pope” when he’s called “Pope”?

Obviously not…see below.

Quote:
"Montalban:

He is not successor to Peter because he is Bishop of Rome. There is no tie in with a particular location, else Antioch could make a claim as being successors to Peter.

Not true – see below, re: the early Fathers.

I looked below and you make no reference to them at all.
Quote:
"Montalban:

Your site says that they can’t. I quoted it. My mistake, for which I apologise was not to reference it. It is the Catholic Encyclopaedia, although a different page therein."It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htmIt was an effort to show how the encyclopaedia makes errors with respect to the papacy. They have.

And, as before, it’s irrelevant if a Pope HAS named a successor.

Then it’s wrong! Eusebius said Peter had. Your encyclopaedia says they can’t. As before, you’re wrong.
"Montalban:

There were several places called “Chairs of Peter”.Because it’s a nonsense to tie him to only one bishopric. That’s why they’re called “Papal Elections” not “Bishop of Rome Elections”. They even vote on a form which says “Eligo in summum pontificem” (I elect a supreme Pontiff) (not "I elect a Bishop of Rome)

Who cares if there is more than one “Chair of Peter”? There’s only one See or Bishopric of Rome, and that is where Peter’s Authority was to reside.

Who cares. Show how this one particular See gets to be head.
"Montalban:

Pope Innocent III was made Pope (February 21, 1198) AND THEN CONSECRATED BISHOP OF ROME THE FOLLOWING DAY The cardinal-deacon Giacinto Bobone (or Bobo-Orsini ) [1106 – 08 Jan 1198], who was elected Pope (Celestine III) on 30 March 1191, is ordained a priest, so that the next day he can be consecrated bishop of Rome.safran-arts.com/42day/his…r/h4apr13.html

Are you really going to criticize the accuracy of the Catholic Encyclopedia using Wikipedia as support?

Thanks for the appeal to incredulity. The point is that the appointment as ‘pope’ and appointment as ‘bishop of Rome’ were separate.

I never once said there was never an exception to the rule; I just quoted the rule as it was cited.

The fact that there are exceptions shows that one does not have to be Bishop of Rome, when you’re pope. I stated this, this is in fact the very thing you’re arguing against. Now you say ‘what if there are exceptions!”

More from the CE

And I’ve pointed out that they err - despite your faith in them and disdain for Wiki

.]Do you see? The Authority was Peters, and once he became the Bishop of Rome, it was passed on to his successors. Period.

No. The successors, regardless of where they are, would be pope. You argue that they can only be bishops of Rome.

In summary you say to “See the Church Fathers”; you make no reference to – although you did give a ‘just-so’ argument from your own mind. You make the mistake in saying the Pope must also be Bishop of Rome, which is false. They might well have moved permanently to Avignon and given up any Italian titles, and they still would have been popes. Their claim to be Pope is ‘successor to Peter’ not ‘successor to Peter only in Rome’. I’ve shown you that people are chosen Pope – they’re Papal elections, not Bishop of Rome elections. Sure, now the Popes are Bishops of Rome, but this has not always been the case – Peter as noted was not Bishop of Rome.
Even then, in Church history people have been separately made Pope, and then Bishop of Rome. The ‘exceptions’ show that your rule is made up. Starting with your very first Pope. And sure, Peter wasn’t deemed Pope, but just because they gave his position a different name, doesn’t mean had had a different position

 

[Montalban]

I think there’s merit in what you say Montalban, strangely enough

James was Bishop in Jerusalem when Peter was there settling the circumcision issue. Yet he was already, “Pope.” Paul even sought him out there and spent time with him, in spite of the fact that James was the bishop! Clear evidence of Peter’s Leader status (Pope) even though he was not in Rome.
(Acts)

I know a bit about the 3-way split but not enough to comment definitively. Bottom line, I’m just thinking out loud, as it were.

This is what I’m getting at.

He was Pope before he was ever in a Bishopric (according to Catholic understanding). He became head of the church in Antioch and it is rightly called a Chair of Peter.

His authority was not linked to a particular See – which is what some argue – that he must also be bishop of Rome.

That is one ‘exception’ to this rule already.

Others are two examples of people who were chosen Pope before they were consecrated Bishops of Rome.

These ‘exceptions’ (as one person put it) undermine the very notion that the Supreme Pontificate is attached to Rome.

I believe it’s an absolute nonsense (in Catholic understanding) to say that he’s permanently linked to a particular city. I don’t think God has made Rome holy.

I think what confuses people is the fact that the person usually holds the two positions; Pope and Bishop of Rome. We have seen the Pope lose titles and gain them. And I don’t think the title matters.

 

[Teflon93]

This is what I’m getting at.

He was Pope before he was ever in a Bishopric (according to Catholic understanding). He became head of the church in Antioch and it is rightly called a Chair of Peter.

His authority was not linked to a particular See – which is what some argue – that he must also be bishop of Rome.

That is one ‘exception’ to this rule already.

Others are two examples of people who were chosen Pope before they were consecrated Bishops of Rome.

These ‘exceptions’ (as one person put it) undermine the very notion that the Supreme Pontificate is attached to Rome.

I believe it’s an absolute nonsense (in Catholic understanding) to say that he’s permanently linked to a particular city. I don’t think God has made Rome holy.

I think what confuses people is the fact that the person usually holds the two positions; Pope and Bishop of Rome. We have seen the Pope lose titles and gain them. And I don’t think the title matters.

So the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox have revolving leadership?

 

[Deconi]

This is what I’m getting at.

He was Pope before he was ever in a Bishopric (according to Catholic understanding). He became head of the church in Antioch and it is rightly called a Chair of Peter.

.

It must be remembered though that whilst the “person” of the Pope lives, where he IS, is where the Seat is! Therefore, when Peter left Antioch, his Seat left with him. This safeguards against suggestions that a legitimate Chair of Peter remained or exists in Antioch, or Jerusalem or weherever else he may have been during his life.

Where he dies though, is where The Chair remains, since his ‘person’ left it vacant there.

In my own humblest of opinions, The Church is universal and so the Pope can be where he needs to be, and still be Pope. If he elects another to be Bishop of Rome in his absence, this is still a possibility without undermining Papacy.

For instance, God forbid, if Rome and the Vatican were to be overwhelmed by an anti Christian militant force, the Pope can leave Rome without losing the Papacy or Bishopic status. Should he elect another as Bishop while he establishes The Seat elsewhere in the world, this is still acceptable and within Catholic Tradition.

 

[Montalban]

It must be remembered though that whilst the “person” of the Pope lives, where he IS, is where the Seat is! Therefore, when Peter left Antioch, his Seat left with him. This safeguards against suggestions that a legitimate Chair of Peter remained or exists in Antioch, or Jerusalem or weherever else he may have been during his life.

Where he dies though, is where The Chair remains, since his ‘person’ left it vacant there.

He left it vacant at Antioch when he left, and this too was filled by a successor to Peter

In my own humblest of opinions, The Church is universal and so the Pope can be where he needs to be, and still be Pope. If he elects another to be Bishop of Rome in his absence, this is still a possibility without undermining Papacy.

This too is what I believe. When I started this thread I asked the simple question “has there ever been (during the exile in Avignon) a time when they were not also bishops of Rome?”. They probably all continued in that title – but I’m not certain. However this whole thread was hi-jacked by people who said that a Pope had to be Bishop of Rome – which is not true. According to Catholic thinking the Papacy would go on if Rome was no more.

For instance, God forbid, if Rome and the Vatican were to be overwhelmed by an anti Christian militant force, the Pope can leave Rome without losing the Papacy or Bishopic status. Should he elect another as Bishop while he establishes The Seat elsewhere in the world, this is still acceptable and within Catholic Tradition.

I agree with you again.