Popes in Avignon

[DanteAlighieri]

I looked below and you make no reference to them at all.

Then you didn’t look hard enough.

I said that the article I was then quoting cited about a dozen or so Church Fathers who asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Sorry I didn’t provide the link before, but you’re mistaken to say I made no reference to them at all.

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

And, as before, this issue is moot. That a particular pope (Peter, in this case) once named a successor does not mean that ALL popes can. In any case, this has nothing to do with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

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

Sigh…

I already did. See the reference above to the ECF, for starters. It might also help to look at Scripture, where Jesus appoints Peter as the head of the Church on earth, and then to accept that this authority followed Peter wherever he went.

If Peter had ended up the Bishop of Mogadishu, then the Successor of Peter would be the Bishop of Mogadishu. But Peter ended up (by design, no doubt) in Rome. Hence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

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

No, the point is that the honorific “Bishop of Rome” was in use long before the honorific “Pope”, but that both refer to the same individual: the successor of Peter, whose authority is vested in the office of Bishop of Rome by tradition.

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!”

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

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

The fact that there are exceptions to a pope nominating a successor shows that the pope doesn’t have to be Bishop of Rome? That doesn’t follow logically.

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.

Again, I apologize for not linking to the article I was referencing. If you read it, you’ll see that the ECFs I mentioned were, in fact, asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the Petrine authority resides in the Bishop of Rome, by Tradition.

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’.

OK, now we’re splitting hairs.

Yes, I’m sure the Papacy could be relocated to reside in another bishopric; I am no expert in canon law, but I see no reason why that could not be possible.

It is a fact, however, that this has not happened: the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, and vice versa. The term pope, as I pointed out before, is a much more recent honorific for the same man.

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.

Peter was not the Bishop of Rome? Please cite your source. According to the CE:

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

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

You are suggesting that because at one time XYZ was true, that it is false to say “XYZ cannot be done.” This logic is faulty; the statement is not “XYZ has never been done”. Even if you were right, it does not have the bearing on this topic that you claim it does simply because you say it does.

(continued below)

 

[DanteAlighieri]

(continued from above)

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. His successors – whether hand picked or not – possessed the same authority that Christ gave him. All of his successors held the title “Bishop of Rome”, even if there did not yet exist a title of “Pope” used exclusively for this office.

By the way, it is not my disdain for wikipedia that makes it a questionable source; it is the fact that it is written and edited by anybody who wants to write it and/or edit it, and that its standards for evidence and citation are poorly enforced, that makes it a poor foundation for any argument.

If you wish to refute the fact that the Bishop of Rome possesses the authority of Peter, whether or not you call that bishop “Pope”, please use verifiable, reliable sources. That you believe you’ve found ONE minor historical discrepancy in the huge tome of the Catholic Encylcopedia by no means reduces its reliability.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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

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.

I agree with you again.

As I just said in my previous post, if the Church saw fit to move that authority to another bishopric, that would present no problem of which I am aware. The fact is, however, that it has not done so, and thus the authority of the pope resides in the office of the Bishop of Rome.

In that regard, I think we can agree.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Deconi]

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

As Bishop, of course.

But “Pope” status remains with the “person” alive wherever he may be until he ‘relinguishes’ or dies.

I think I read somewhere why the arguments about the Papacy being in Rome is because Peter was both **Pope AND Bishop of Rome **at the same time when he was matyred. I think then, at face value, that since this is the position when Peter vacated his Seat, the successor HAS TO HAVE BOTH positions when he ascends the Chair.

It is a valid point. Certainly, if this was a legal argument in Court, it is ‘most likely’ to succeed.

 

[Montalban]

Then you didn’t look hard enough.

I said that the article I was then quoting cited about a dozen or so Church Fathers who asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Sorry I didn’t provide the link before, but you’re mistaken to say I made no reference to them at all.

No! You did not say this.
You said

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

And ‘below’ there were no references to the Early Fathers. You do know the difference between ‘above’ and ‘below’?

And, as before, this issue is moot. That a particular pope (Peter, in this case) once named a successor does not mean that ALL popes can. In any case, this has nothing to do with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

This is the second time you’ve repeated the same claim that misses the mark.
Here’s it in simpler terms.
My example - Peter, a Pope named a successor
Your example claims NO POPE can name a successor. It’s an absolute statement.

Sigh…

Indeed! I can understand your frustration. I show examples that poke holes in your absolutes. You simply want to repeat your absolutes. Which is a mistake.

I already did. See the reference above to the ECF, for starters.

Above to below?

It might also help to look at Scripture, where Jesus appoints Peter as the head of the Church on earth, and then to accept that this authority followed Peter wherever he went.

He doesn’t do this.

If Peter had ended up the Bishop of Mogadishu, then the Successor of Peter would be the Bishop of Mogadishu. But Peter ended up (by design, no doubt) in Rome. Hence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

No. Hence the primacy of the Pope.

No, the point is that the honorific “Bishop of Rome” was in use long before the honorific “Pope”, but that both refer to the same individual: the successor of Peter, whose authority is vested in the office of Bishop of Rome by tradition.

By tradition? Not by Jesus?

The fact that there are exceptions to a pope nominating a successor shows that the pope doesn’t have to be Bishop of Rome? That doesn’t follow logically.

That’s a straw-man. You know full well that the nominating successor issue was to discredit the source you rely upon.

Again, I apologize for not linking to the article I was referencing.

In effect you’re saying “See the Church Fathers below which aren’t actually below but in a site I’m referring to now, but not sourcing just yet”
That’s hardly convincing stuff.

If you read it, you’ll see that the ECFs I mentioned were, in fact, asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the Petrine authority resides in the Bishop of Rome, by Tradition.

I’m aware of the miss-use of ECFs.
See for instance this thread called “Research” at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=893926&highlight=bumblebee#post893926

OK, now we’re splitting hairs.

Yes, I’m sure the Papacy could be relocated to reside in another bishopric; I am no expert in canon law, but I see no reason why that could not be possible.

That was my point. Thank you. That’s all that you argued against for the past several days.

 

[Montalban]

As Bishop, of course.

But “Pope” status remains with the “person” alive wherever he may be until he ‘relinguishes’ or dies.

that assumes that he was in fact a ‘pope’ (in deed, or title)
Pope Gregory said

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors

…

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one

…

He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "

To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Book VII, Epistle XL

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6430_2272546

He says the See in Anitoch and the See in Rome, both being of Peter are the See of One

I think I read somewhere why the arguments about the Papacy being in Rome is because Peter was both Pope AND Bishop of Rome at the same time when he was matyred.

Yes, but that’s taking two facts to reach a conclusion not supported by those facts.
Fact: Peter was martyred in Rome
Fact: Peter was a bishop in Rome
Conclusion: Only successors of Peter in this particular bishopric can be leaders of the church.

There’s no link between the facts, and the conclusion, other than - it just must be.

I think then, at face value, that since this is the position when Peter vacated his Seat, the successor HAS TO HAVE BOTH positions when he ascends the Chair.

It is a valid point. Certainly, if this was a legal argument in Court, it is ‘most likely’ to succeed.

There’s several other problems, including evidence that Paul in fact chose Peter’s successor.
“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."
“Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?”

Futher Rome’s primacy (and I here hesitate to use the Catholic term) is based on it’s association with Peter AND Paul.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

No! You did not say this.
You said

And ‘below’ there were no references to the Early Fathers. You do know the difference between ‘above’ and ‘below’?

This is the second time you’ve repeated the same claim that misses the mark.
Here’s it in simpler terms.
My example - Peter, a Pope named a successor
Your example claims NO POPE can name a successor. It’s an absolute statement.

Indeed! I can understand your frustration. I show examples that poke holes in your absolutes. You simply want to repeat your absolutes. Which is a mistake.

Above to below?

He doesn’t do this.

No. Hence the primacy of the Pope.

By tradition? Not by Jesus?

That’s a straw-man. You know full well that the nominating successor issue was to discredit the source you rely upon.

In effect you’re saying “See the Church Fathers below which aren’t actually below but in a site I’m referring to now, but not sourcing just yet”
That’s hardly convincing stuff.

I’m aware of the miss-use of ECFs.
See for instance this thread called “Research” at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=893926&highlight=bumblebee#post893926

That was my point. Thank you. That’s all that you argued against for the past several days.

I’m glad to see you’ve conceded that you’ve been doing nothing but split hairs on this issue. You can do your victory dance around your irrelevant disproved argument all you like; it doesn’t change the FACT that the Bishop of Rome, by tradition (which is of God), possesses the authority given by Christ Himself to Peter. Period.

Split your hairs if you like; you’ve surrendered the argument by a) failing to read my posts in their entirety and then claiming their inaccuracy or incompleteness and b) pinning the fate of your “argument” on your own nice little strawman and acting as though it meant something, followed by c) getting rude and, finally, d) conceding that you have been splitting hairs all along anyway.

Ta, now.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Deconi]

that assumes that he was in fact a ‘pope’ (in deed, or title)
Pope Gregory said

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors

…

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one

…

He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "

To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Book VII, Epistle XL

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6430_2272546

He says the See in Anitoch and the See in Rome, both being of Peter are the See of One
.

I think you’re reading something into these that are not there. The exchange of pleasantries and charitable self depreciation in acknowledgement to each other here is not in itself ‘authenticating’ a See in Alexandria. The rest of the letters by Gregory to Eulogius show the latter as acknowledging that Gregory is the ‘Universal Pope’ and Gregory in turn “reprimanding” him for saying that. Not because it isn’t true, but because Gregory does not want ‘his vanity’ to be tampered with!

You can see this clearly when he begs Eulogius to remove the word commanded from his thinking when he himself received a ‘desirous request’ from Gregory. As far as Gregory was concerned, they were brethren first and foremost, even though he was Pope. In fact he considered himself “lesser,” being a sinner and asks Eulogius to pray and intercede to Almighty God on his behalf as his own efforts may be in vain (unworthy before God)

As for the 3-sees he mentions, (Eulogius in Alexandria and Anastasius in Antioch) he is reminding Eulogius that they too occupy in the person of Peter. But this is in reply to Eulogius charitable elevation of Gregory in esteem in saying that Peter himself seats in his Chair “in the persons of his successors” (a referrence to Gregory as Peter himself!)

All are true, but they are ‘pleasantries’ exchanged charitably!

Yes, but that’s taking two facts to reach a conclusion not supported by those facts.
Fact: Peter was martyred in Rome
Fact: Peter was a bishop in Rome
Conclusion: Only successors of Peter in this particular bishopric can be leaders of the church.

There’s no link between the facts, and the conclusion, other than - it just must be.

No, because you have ommitted a third fact without warrant.
Fact: Matyred in Rome
Fact: Bishop of Rome
Fact: Reigning Pope at the time.

Conclusion: Need to replace all 3 in one.

A person to replace the matyred one
A Bishop of Rome (Not anywhere else)
A Pope.

When the ‘situation’ is restored to its original state, then you can look at separating as an option. You cannot separate the two ‘offices’ unless / until a successor, by virture of the office as Pope, separates Pope from Bishop.

I think then, at face value, that since this is the position when Peter vacated his Seat, the successor HAS TO HAVE BOTH positions when he ascends the Chair.

It is a valid point. Certainly, if this was a legal argument in Court, it is ‘most likely’ to succeed.

There’s several other problems, including evidence that Paul in fact chose Peter’s successor.
“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."
“Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?”

Futher Rome’s primacy (and I here hesitate to use the Catholic term) is based on it’s association with Peter AND Paul.

I think you’re arguing for the Church’s position here. If what you say was correct, then Paul should have had a shot at the title. But he was neither Pope or Bishop, and seemed to indicate by his actions that the status quo remain in Rome, don’t you think?

 

[Montalban]

I’m glad to see you’ve conceded that you’ve been doing nothing but split hairs on this issue.

You’re the one who objected! Now you want to make it that I’m splitting hairs!

You finally agreed with my statement - which was not central to the OP anyway - it was you who tried diversion.

I stated that the Pope hasn’t always been Bishop of Rome and asked if, when in Avignon, did any cease to hold that title.

The second part was the reason for the OP. Rather than answer that you took umbridge at the first bit! Now you’ve not the honesty to admit this either!

 

[Montalban]

I think you’re reading something into these that are not there. The exchange of pleasantries and charitable self depreciation in acknowledgement to each other here is not in itself ‘authenticating’ a See in Alexandria.

It is recognising that the See has Petrine roots… and is thus accorded the honorific “Chair of Peter”
As he himself says it’s ‘owed’
“Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you”

(Here I apologise to others for the dead link… CCEL changed their entire site since I researched this. Here is the link that works…)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html

The rest of the letters by Gregory to Eulogius show the latter as acknowledging that Gregory is the ‘Universal Pope’ and Gregory in turn “reprimanding” him for saying that. Not because it isn’t true, but because Gregory does not want ‘his vanity’ to be tampered with!

Where do you read him reprimanding Eulogius? Or, is this in other letters? This is a terribly weak argument to make. That the ‘evidence’ you’re deabting with is just somewhere else!

You can see this clearly when he begs Eulogius to remove the word commanded from his thinking when he himself received a ‘desirous request’ from Gregory. As far as Gregory was concerned, they were brethren first and foremost, even though he was Pope. In fact he considered himself “lesser,” being a sinner and asks Eulogius to pray and intercede to Almighty God on his behalf as his own efforts may be in vain (unworthy before God)

So he begs, not commands.

As for the 3-sees he mentions, (Eulogius in Alexandria and Anastasias in Antioch) he is reminding Eulogius that they too occupy in the person of Peter. But this is in reply to Eulogius charitable elevation of Gregory in esteem in saying that Peter himself seats in his Chair “in the persons of his successors” (a reference to Gregory as Peter himself!)

I don’t know how you work this out, because if Gregory is Peter, then so is Eulogius, because Gregory says the three are one. Evidentially you think that he means “The three are One -(a)”

All are true, but they are ‘pleasantries’ exchanged charitably!

As due.

No, because you have omitted a third fact without warrant.
Fact: Martyred in Rome
Fact: Bishop of Rome
Fact: Reigning Pope at the time.

It’s just another fact that has no bearing on the conclusion. Peter reigned in Antioch. And was replaced by a bishop. He reigned in Rome, and was replaced by a bishop

When the ‘situation’ is restored to its original state, then you can look at separating as an option. You cannot separate the two ‘offices’ unless / until a successor, by virtue of the office as Pope, separates Pope from Bishop.

That’s just assuming that the Bishop of Rome was leader of the Church - that “Pope” meant this (the office wasn’t called Pope till much later). What makes this particular one different from a bishop who’s also called “Patriarch”? In fact the Bishop in Alexandria got called “Pope” sooner.

I think then, at face value, that since this is the position when Peter vacated his Seat, the successor HAS TO HAVE BOTH positions when he ascends the Chair.

Why? You making a ‘just-so’ doesn’t work.

I think you’re arguing for the Church’s position here. If what you say was correct, then Paul should have had a shot at the title.

 

[Montalban]

Not at all. The Orthodox understanding is that both Peter and Paul had equal authority in Rome. One may have worked with the Jews, the other the Gentiles, but both had authority as each other. Another Pope makes this point…
“I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy
anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is
recorded as done for all men’s salvation should be everywhere celebrated
with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day’s festival
has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and
peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of
gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the
Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the
light of Christ’s gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier
auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother’s blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter’s holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.

…

VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers’ excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God’s Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God’s Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles’ merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).)

You’re working on the assumption that Peter was supreme leader , firstly. And that when he was in Rome he had the office of both leader and ‘bishop of Rome’. No where have you shown why Peter’s charism as leader should pass on to the person who followed him in this particular bishopric, other than it must have because he died. So what? It had to have passed on to someone who was living, and the Bishop in Antioch was, so why not to him? I think you’re wrapped up in the idea, too, that the leader MUST be also bishop of Rome.

You seem to think that an extra fact (about his martyrdom) points to the conclusion. It doesn’t.

 

[Montalban]

I think you’re reading something into these that are not there. The exchange of pleasantries and charitable self depreciation in acknowledgement to each other here is not in itself ‘authenticating’ a See in Alexandria.

It is recognising that the See has Petrine roots… and is thus accorded the honorific “Chair of Peter”
As he himself says it’s ‘owed’
“Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you”

(Here I apologise to others for the dead link… CCEL changed their entire site since I researched this. Here is the link that works…)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html

The rest of the letters by Gregory to Eulogius show the latter as acknowledging that Gregory is the ‘Universal Pope’ and Gregory in turn “reprimanding” him for saying that. Not because it isn’t true, but because Gregory does not want ‘his vanity’ to be tampered with!

Where do you read him reprimanding Eulogius? Or, is this in other letters? This is a terribly weak argument to make. That the ‘evidence’ you’re deabting with is just somewhere else!

You can see this clearly when he begs Eulogius to remove the word commanded from his thinking when he himself received a ‘desirous request’ from Gregory. As far as Gregory was concerned, they were brethren first and foremost, even though he was Pope. In fact he considered himself “lesser,” being a sinner and asks Eulogius to pray and intercede to Almighty God on his behalf as his own efforts may be in vain (unworthy before God)

So he begs, not commands.

As for the 3-sees he mentions, (Eulogius in Alexandria and Anastasias in Antioch) he is reminding Eulogius that they too occupy in the person of Peter. But this is in reply to Eulogius charitable elevation of Gregory in esteem in saying that Peter himself seats in his Chair “in the persons of his successors” (a reference to Gregory as Peter himself!)

I don’t know how you work this out, because if Gregory is Peter, then so is Eulogius, because Gregory says the three are one. Evidentially you think that he means “The three are One -(a)”

All are true, but they are ‘pleasantries’ exchanged charitably!

As due.

No, because you have omitted a third fact without warrant.
Fact: Martyred in Rome
Fact: Bishop of Rome
Fact: Reigning Pope at the time.

It’s just another fact that has no bearing on the conclusion. Peter reigned in Antioch. And was replaced by a bishop. He reigned in Rome, and was replaced by a bishop

 

[Montalban]

I shall say no more - because all of this has nothing to do with the OP. I do appreciate that you’ve not been rude, and that you’re offering at least a constructed argument… which is more than others here

Secondly, we could further digress about the assumption of yours that Peter was leader, but that would be further off-topic.

I shall say no more - because all of this has nothing to do with the OP.

I hope that someone will be able to answer the OP:shrug:

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You’re the one who objected! Now you want to make it that I’m splitting hairs!

You finally agreed with my statement - which was not central to the OP anyway - it was you who tried diversion.

I stated that the Pope hasn’t always been Bishop of Rome and asked if, when in Avignon, did any cease to hold that title.

The second part was the reason for the OP. Rather than answer that you took umbridge at the first bit! Now you’ve not the honesty to admit this either!

Now you’re accusing me of being dishonest. Nice tactic.

You have not established your claim that the Pope has not always been Bishop of Rome, for one thing. For another, the claim against which I was arguing was NOT that one – it was your assertion that the Papacy is independent of the Bishopric of Rome, which I have established as untrue.

Peace,
Dante

 

[anthony022071]

It is recognising that the See has Petrine roots… and is thus accorded the honorific “Chair of Peter”
As he himself says it’s ‘owed’
“Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you”

Yes,Alexandria had Petrine roots – Peter sent Mark to Egypt and Mark founded the See of Alexandria on the authority of Peter.
The See of Alexandria had its traditional authority from the See of Peter. Neither Alexandria nor Antioch could claim equality with the See of Rome,but Rome did have ecclesiastic authority over them,as well as Constantinople.

Pope Gelasius:

“Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

 

[Montalban]

Now you’re accusing me of being dishonest. Nice tactic.

You are continuing in this vein; you entered the thread on a diversion and accused me of ‘splitting-hairs’ then ended up agreeing with all that I stated in the first place.

You have not established your claim that the Pope has not always been Bishop of Rome, for one thing.

More of the same from you! I did this with the case of Peter. You even recognised this but tried a different argument about ‘exceptions’

You either accept that there are exceptions, or not. You can’t say “There’s absoultely no instances” of something, when there are!

I note you tried the same with the mistake from the Catholic Encyclopedia - re: Popes appointing successors. There’s either an absolute, or there isn’t.

 

[Montalban]

Yes,Alexandria had Petrine roots – Peter sent Mark to Egypt and Mark founded the See of Alexandria on the authority of Peter.

As I said this is off-topic. If you want to discuss this further come on over to the Eastern Christianity threads.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Discuss more and argue less please.
Stay on the topic and avoid the personal potshots.
MF

 

[metal1633]

By definition the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, so you cannot have a Pope who is not Bishop of Rome, and you cannot have a Bishop of Rome who is not the Pope.

By our CURRENT definition. At the time of the French Papacy that was not so. The First Vatican Council was when it was made Necessary that the Pope also be Bishop of Rome.

 

[Montalban]

By our CURRENT definition. At the time of the French Papacy that was not so. The First Vatican Council was when it was made Necessary that the Pope also be Bishop of Rome.

Cool. Do you have any references?