Lesson on Papacy wanted. Avignon

[richbansha]

I understand this much:

The Pope is the heir of St. Peter.
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Now what I don’t understand:

Were the Avignon Popes the Bishops of Avignon, the Bishops of Rome or the Bishops of both?

When the Popes were in Avignon, did Rome have another bishop? I don’t mean another Pope, but another bishop who was empowered to run the diocese and perform the pastoral duties with or without the title Bishop of Rome?

Just curious.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

richbansha:

I understand this much:

The Pope is the heir of St. Peter.
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Now what I don’t understand:

Were the Avignon Popes the Bishops of Avignon, the Bishops of Rome or the Bishops of both?

When the Popes were in Avignon, did Rome have another bishop? I don’t mean another Pope, but another bishop who was empowered to run the diocese and perform the pastoral duties with or without the title Bishop of Rome?

Just curious.

As I understand it, when Rome was under siege and the Papacy temporarily moved to Avignon, France, the Pope was Bishop of Rome (as well as leader of the universal Church) in exile.

 

[1ke]

richbansha:

Were the Avignon Popes the Bishops of Avignon, the Bishops of Rome or the Bishops of both?

The Bishop of Rome, living in exile.

richbansha:

When the Popes were in Avignon, did Rome have another bishop?

In some cases another Bishop was elected-- invalidly of course, as there can be only one Bishop. These were referred to as anti-Popes. They were not valid Popes/Bishops, but they were physically in Rome.

richbansha:

I don’t mean another Pope, but another bishop who was empowered to run the diocese and perform the pastoral duties with or without the title Bishop of Rome?

No, there was no legitimate second bishop.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1ke:

In some cases another Bishop was elected-- invalidly of course, as there can be only one Bishop. These were referred to as anti-Popes. They were not valid Popes/Bishops, but they were physically in Rome.

Also, what is commonly referred to as the “Western Schism” is when Pope Gregory XI restored the Papacy to Rome. Some heretical French Kings sought to keep the Papacy near their territory (although at the time Avignon was a Papal territory) so they would support anti-popes which were elected by schismatic cardinals. St. Catherine of Siena was the one which was largely responsible for convincing the Pope to return to Rome.

newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

I would also like to mention that even if Rome is destroyed and becomes a wasteland, any validly elected successor of St. Peter would still be Bishop of Rome and Pope because it does not matter in which city the leader of the Universal Church resides.