Rejection of the Pope

[Eucharisted]

“If the pope is rejected, it follows that not one bishop, but the whole episcopate threatens to fall.”
– Avitus, Bishop of Vienne; writing about A.D. 520.

Avitus makes a distinction here between bishop and pope. It is true that each bishop is the father (papa, pope) of the local church, but Avitus shows that the pope is an office seperate from the bishop. And this was written in 520 AD: four hundred thirty-four years before the Great Schism.

I was wondering what Orthodox think of the bishop’s statement.

 

[4EverHis]

that is interesting… I’ve never heard this before.

 

[JonNC]

“If the pope is rejected, it follows that not one bishop, but the whole episcopate threatens to fall.”
– Avitus, Bishop of Vienne; writing about A.D. 520.

Avitus makes a distinction here between bishop and pope. It is true that each bishop is the father (papa, pope) of the local church, but Avitus shows that the pope is an office seperate from the bishop. And this was written in 520 AD: four hundred thirty-four years before the Great Schism.

I was wondering what Orthodox think of the bishop’s statement.

Maybe you can tell me what the bishop meant by rejecting the pope? Reject him how?
Jon

 

[Eucharisted]

Maybe you can tell me what the bishop meant by rejecting the pope? Reject him how?
Jon

Rejection of his authority. But I don’t have his writings, so I don’t know for sure. It’s an educated guess.

 

[cheese_sdc]

“If the pope is rejected, it follows that not one bishop, but the whole episcopate threatens to fall.”
– Avitus, Bishop of Vienne; writing about A.D. 520.

Avitus makes a distinction here between bishop and pope. It is true that each bishop is the father (papa, pope) of the local church, but Avitus shows that the pope is an office seperate from the bishop.

I get that at all. He is obviously equating the Pope with a bishop, as evidenced by the phrase “Not one bishop, BUT…” It seems to me that he is saying that if you reject one bishop, you reject them all.

 

[mardukm]

I get that at all. He is obviously equating the Pope with a bishop, as evidenced by the phrase “Not one bishop, BUT…” It seems to me that he is saying that if you reject one bishop, you reject them all.

That doesn’t make sense. If it means what you say, why mention the Pope at all?

Blessings

 

[TheQuestioner]

I get that at all. He is obviously equating the Pope with a bishop, as evidenced by the phrase “Not one bishop, BUT…” It seems to me that he is saying that if you reject one bishop, you reject them all.

Though the Pope is a Bishop, he clearly makes a distinction that there is something about this bishop that if rejected the whole Church falls into chaos.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

“If the pope is rejected, it follows that not one bishop, but the whole episcopate threatens to fall.”
– Avitus, Bishop of Vienne; writing about A.D. 520.

Avitus makes a distinction here between bishop and pope. It is true that each bishop is the father (papa, pope) of the local church, but Avitus shows that the pope is an office seperate from the bishop. And this was written in 520 AD: four hundred thirty-four years before the Great Schism.

I was wondering what Orthodox think of the bishop’s statement.

Have you a link to that writing? Im curious to know if the ‘‘pope’’ referred to is the Bishop of Rome? Is there anything in the writing that indicates that it is?

 

[Eucharisted]

Have you a link to that writing? Im curious to know if the ‘‘pope’’ referred to is the Bishop of Rome? Is there anything in the writing that indicates that it is?

Yes. Bishop of Rome is a title of the Pope. He is the bishop of the City of Rome as well as the Supreme Pontiff, which is another title of the Pope. Here are the Church Fathers on the bishops and the Pope:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ dose the Father. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who dose anything without the knowledge of the bishop, dose serve the devil. - St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 107 AD

When we refer them to that Tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters [bishops] in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser, not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles. - St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lychos 180 AD

It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. - St. Irenaeus

For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree. - St. Irenaeus

Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. - St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage 251 AD

There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. - St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo 397 AD

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. - St. Augustine, 412 AD

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes. Bishop of Rome is a title of the Pope. He is the bishop of the City of Rome as well as the Supreme Pontiff, which is another title of the Pope. Here are the Church Fathers on the bishops and the Pope:

Yes, but as I understand it, the Bishop of Rome didn’t start using the term “Pope” until the sixth century with the advent of the reign of Pope John I (which didn’t begin until three years after your cited date for the author of this quote, whereas the Bishop of Alexandria had been using it since the third.

Did this Bishop actually use the term “Pope” or did he use another term that has been translated into English as “Pope”?

If he did indeed use “Pope”, how do we know he was talking about the Roman Pope and not the Alexandrian Pope?

Most importantly: Can you offer us some context for this quote? I really hate stand-alone quotes. To whom was this Bishop speaking? When was he speaking it? For what reason?

Thanks.

 

[Eucharisted]

Yes, but as I understand it, the Bishop of Rome didn’t start using the term “Pope” until the sixth century with the advent of the reign of Pope John I (which didn’t begin until three years after your cited date for the author of this quote, whereas the Bishop of Alexandria had been using it since the third.

Did this Bishop actually use the term “Pope” or did he use another term that has been translated into English as “Pope”?

If he did indeed use “Pope”, how do we know he was talking about the Roman Pope and not the Alexandrian Pope?

Most importantly: Can you offer us some context for this quote? I really hate stand-alone quotes. To whom was this Bishop speaking? When was he speaking it? For what reason?

Thanks.

Nope, the term Pope was used for the Pope by the time Avitus was bishop, as is shown by his quote. The bishops are a type of pope in as far as they are vicars of Christ for their particular churches, just as the Pope is the vicar of Christ for Rome (as bishop) and for the whole Church (as pope). The hierarchy and ancient presbyters (deacons, priests, and bishops) is shown in Acts: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5452021&postcount=2

Just as the term Christian was not around until Antioche, so too the term Pope was not used until after Peter’s life, it seems. The Church evolves over the years, defining truth when confronted with heresy and purifying the Mass of every stain and abuse and becoming more conformed to her Lord. This is what history shows. It is not that something did not exist in the beginning of the Church but that that something was not clearly defined yet; for example, early Christians recognized Peter as their leader, as the vicar of Christ, who gave him the keys to the doors of the Kingdom, but the office of Peter - the Pope - was not clearly defined until later.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Nope, the term Pope was used for the Pope by the time Avitus was bishop, as is shown by his quote.

How does the quote show this? He doesn’t say “Rome” or “Seat of Peter”, nor have you given us any context for the quote from which we can extrapolate.

Just as the term Christian was not around until Antioche, so too the term Pope was not used until after Peter’s life, it seems. The Church evolves over the years, defining truth when confronted with heresy and purifying the Mass of every stain and abuse and becoming more conformed to her Lord. This is what history shows. It is not that something did not exist in the beginning of the Church but that that something was not clearly defined yet; for example, early Christians recognized Peter as their leader, as the vicar of Christ, who gave him the keys to the doors of the Kingdom, but the office of Peter - the Pope - was not clearly defined until later.

I understand all that, and I never claimed that the Church evolves. You still haven’t answered my questions either.

Could you at least show us where you found this quote?

 

[Eucharisted]

How does the quote show this? He doesn’t say “Rome” or “Seat of Peter”, nor have you given us any context for the quote from which we can extrapolate.

I understand all that, and I never claimed that the Church evolves. You still haven’t answered my questions either.

Could you at least show us where you found this quote?

I already answered your question.

As to how I know what the bishop is talking about, it’s because he isn’t explaining “Pope”, which means to whomever he is speaking already knows who and what he is speaking about. Hence, the term Pope is already known by the time he is bishop. The same goes for when St. Augustine uses the term “Catholic Church”. This is made even clearer when we use terms we already know, for example, if I were to tell you that Catholic Answers Forum is a great forum, you’d know what forum I’m speaking about.

I found the quote in the Catholic Quotes on this site. You are free to F5 to find it yourself. You can also find it elsewhere online using Google or some other search engine.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Did this Bishop actually use the term “Pope” or did he use another term that has been translated into English as “Pope”?

If he did indeed use “Pope”, how do we know he was talking about the Roman Pope and not the Alexandrian Pope?

Most importantly: Can you offer us some context for this quote? I really hate stand-alone quotes. To whom was this Bishop speaking? When was he speaking it? For what reason?

Thanks.

Nope, the term Pope was used for the Pope by the time Avitus was bishop, as is shown by his quote.

How does the quote show this? He doesn’t say “Rome” or “Seat of Peter”, nor have you given us any context for the quote from which we can extrapolate.

Could you at least show us where you found this quote?

I already answered your question.

With all due respect, Eucharisted, all you’ve done is repeated your assertion.

You’ve attributed this quote to a date that precedes the first Roman pontiff’s use of the term by three years. Granted it’s a negligible difference, but one that still begs an answer.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but I am being highly critical of context here.

As to how I know what the bishop is talking about, it’s because he isn’t explaining “Pope”, which means to whomever he is speaking already knows who and what he is speaking about. Hence, the term Pope is already known by the time he is bishop.

Yes, and at that time the term was much more widely used (and for much longer time used) with regards to the Pope of Alexandria. You still haven’t answered my question, you’re just exercising special pleading.

The same goes for when St. Augustine uses the term “Catholic Church”. This is made even clearer when we use terms we already know, for example, if I were to tell you that Catholic Answers Forum is a great forum, you’d know what forum I’m speaking about.

Because there is only one Catholic Answers Forum and only one Catholic Church when these terms are coined and continue use.

The term ‘pope’ was coined by the Alexandrians for use of their Bishop, not Rome’s. Rome some 300 years later began using the term as well, and today the term is almost universally understood to refer to Rome’s Bishop.

I found the quote in the Catholic Quotes on this site. You are free to F5 to find it yourself. You can also find it elsewhere online using Google or some other search engine.

I did as you instructed and the only results were this thread, as well as this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363052&highlight=If+the+pope+is+rejected%2C+it+follows+that±one+bishop%2C+but+the+whole+episcopate+threatens+to+fall. which has to do with the second coming.

Could you please just post the page from which you found this quote rather than sending me on a hunting expedition?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Could you please just post the page from which you found this quote rather than sending me on a hunting expedition?

Good luck my friend. Eucharisted is not too keen on providing sources.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Eucharisted]

With all due respect, Eucharisted, all you’ve done is repeated your assertion.

You’ve attributed this quote to a date that precedes the first Roman pontiff’s use of the term by three years. Granted it’s a negligible difference, but one that still begs an answer.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but I am being highly critical of context here.

I’ve already explained myself, and I won’t repeat myself. If you’re having trouble understanding me, than just ask for clarification.

Good luck my friend. Eucharisted is not too keen on providing sources.

On the contrary, I provided my source. And I pray that my defense of myself not hurt my humility.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, but as I understand it, the Bishop of Rome didn’t start using the term “Pope” until the sixth century with the advent of the reign of Pope John I (which didn’t begin until three years after your cited date for the author of this quote, whereas the Bishop of Alexandria had been using it since the third.

Did this Bishop actually use the term “Pope” or did he use another term that has been translated into English as “Pope”?

If he did indeed use “Pope”, how do we know he was talking about the Roman Pope and not the Alexandrian Pope?

Most importantly: Can you offer us some context for this quote? I really hate stand-alone quotes. To whom was this Bishop speaking? When was he speaking it? For what reason?

Thanks.

Three years is a pretty slim timeframe, and I don’t see that three years makes a difference. It is certainly possible that others were referring to the bishop of Rome as Pope many years before Pope John I officially used the title. So there’s nothing contradictory between the citation and the information you gave.

It is very highly unlikely that he is refering to the Bishop of Alexandria because Avitus was a bishop in the Latin Church.

Having said that, I also believe it is important to get the context of that quote and determine its source. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were some forged works falsely attributed to Avitus (newadvent.org/cathen/02161c.htm). So we have to be sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Eucharisted: You offered a quote without any context whatsoever. You couldn’t tell us to whom Avitus was speaking, what he was speaking about, what prompted him to make the statement in the first place. Instead you insisted that the quote, standing alone, answered such questions when they did not. When asked to explain this (i.e. clarification) you hand-waved the issue away.

THIS is an example of what I was looking for:

Three years is a pretty slim timeframe, and I don’t see that three years makes a difference. It is certainly possible that others were referring to the bishop of Rome as Pope many years before Pope John I officially used the title. So there’s nothing contradictory between the citation and the information you gave.

Thank you mardukm. As I admitted, the time frame is negligible, however the proximity in time really undermines Eucharisted’s position that he was obviously speaking about the Roman Pope. (S)he was coming at this issue with a 21st century bias in hand.

I agree it’s reasonable to believe that the title was being used prior to any official proclamation. That tends to be how etymology works, eh?

It is very highly unlikely that he is refering to the Bishop of Alexandria because Avitus was a bishop in the Latin Church.

I hadn’t known this. Thank you. I agree, it’s unlikely he would have been referring to the Bishop of Alexandria.

Having said that, I also believe it is important to get the context of that quote and determine its source. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were some forged works falsely attributed to Avitus (newadvent.org/cathen/02161c.htm). So we have to be sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

Unfortunately the encyclopedia only specifies one set of works that was forged. Whether this is an authentic quote will likely take a level of scholasticism for which this arm-chair apologist isn’t cut out.

Forgery or not, since he was a Latin Bishop, wouldn’t the Orthodox defense essentially chalk it all up to evidence of the evolution of Papal supremacy inherent in Latin theology?

 

[mardukm]

Forgery or not, since he was a Latin Bishop, wouldn’t the Orthodox defense essentially chalk it all up to evidence of the evolution of Papal supremacy inherent in Latin theology?

Yes, I definitely agree. To be fair, though, any non-Catholic who would use the arguments proposed by Gallicanism can be refuted thereby since his See was located in Gaul.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

I just wanted to throw these in:

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp