Popes in Avignon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalban
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool. :cool: Do you have any references?
Vat I Chapters 2 and 3 define (with attached anathemas) that the authority of the Petrine Ministry belongs to the Roman See. That the authority resides in the Office of Bishop of Rome. So even though the Patriarch of Antioch is ALSO a successor of Peter he does not hold the Primacy. The Primacy belongs to the Roman Bishop. It was a reiteration of and expansion upon the teaching given at the 6th session of the Council of Florence. Before this Popes went to Rome and served in Rome out of Custom and Tradition (because that is where Peter died and where the Pope had his desk so to speak).
 
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.

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.
Sigh…again with the complete misrepresentation of what I said.

So long, Montalban – I have grown weary of answering your meandering thoughts.

Peace,
Dante
 
Vat I Chapters 2 and 3 define (with attached anathemas) that the authority of the Petrine Ministry belongs to the Roman See. That the authority resides in the Office of Bishop of Rome. So even though the Patriarch of Antioch is ALSO a successor of Peter he does not hold the Primacy. The Primacy belongs to the Roman Bishop. It was a reiteration of and expansion upon the teaching given at the 6th session of the Council of Florence. Before this Popes went to Rome and served in Rome out of Custom and Tradition (because that is where Peter died and where the Pope had his desk so to speak).
So was this and element of faith that is unchangeable or was this decided for practical purposes? For some reason, I don’t see this being a de-fide statement like the Trinity, Immaculate Conception, or Assumption. What if Rome is blown off the face of the map by some Islamo-Fascist terrorist with a suitcase nuke? Would we have to rebuild and re-establish Rome in order for there to be valid Popes in the future? In a case like this, why couldn’t the college of Cardinals choose a new Pope and run the Church from another diocese? I am sure that if Jerusalem is chosen, that would not bruise any nationalistic egos.
 
So was this and element of faith that is unchangeable or was this decided for practical purposes? For some reason, I don’t see this being a de-fide statement like the Trinity, Immaculate Conception, or Assumption. What if Rome is blown off the face of the map by some Islamo-Fascist terrorist with a suitcase nuke? Would we have to rebuild and re-establish Rome in order for there to be valid Popes in the future? In a case like this, why couldn’t the college of Cardinals choose a new Pope and run the Church from another diocese? I am sure that if Jerusalem is chosen, that would not bruise any nationalistic egos.
Problems may arise for legitimacy!

Peter died as Bishop of Rome. His replacement has to be a Bishop of Rome, not anywhere else including Jerusalem!

Peter died as Pope. His replacement has to be both Pope and Bishop OF Rome.

Unless a living Pope separates the two, Pope and Bishop, must remain IN Rome.

This is a ‘legal’ argument within the temporal sphere so that the physical evidence remain testamony to ‘facts of history.’ Why God seems to have it that way, my reasoning is too minute to fathom, nor am I trying to ‘address’ it, anyway.

:cool:
 
Problems may arise for legitimacy!

Peter died as Bishop of Rome. His replacement has to be a Bishop of Rome, not anywhere else including Jerusalem!

Peter died as Pope. His replacement has to be both Pope and Bishop OF Rome.

Unless a living Pope separates the two, Pope and Bishop, must remain IN Rome.

This is a ‘legal’ argument within the temporal sphere so that the physical evidence remain testamony to ‘facts of history.’ Why God seems to have it that way, my reasoning is too minute to fathom, nor am I trying to ‘address’ it, anyway.
Because you say so?
 
Because you say so?
Not really. Natural Law and common sense says so!

If Queen Elizabeth died abroad on a trip, her replacement has to be monarch of England. Not where she died or anywhere else.

As head of The Church of England, the replacement takes the mantle as well. Pretty basic!

Only if she separates the two, while she lives, can the collection of bishops in England decide if the ‘title’ of Head of the church, should go to someone DIFFERENT from the monarch!

If, for instance, that collection of bishops decide on their own that they will separate the two without the monarch’s consent, legal arguments will arise as to the legitimacy of the new Head of the church. That legal argument will be in favour of the former state of affairs to be restored.

That same legalistic argument holds true even if she were usurped in someway, for the records will ALWAYS show where the correct lineage lies. Even if she were to be exiled, and killed or died in exile, the same records will always attest to her proper status and lineage.

These are the same reasons why your arguments against the Papacy lineage fail.

:cool:
 
Problems may arise for legitimacy!
The Western Schism

Inquirers sometimes ask, “Have there not been for periods of history two or three popes or claimants to the papacy at the same time, as, for instance, during the great Western Schism from 1378 to 1417? Can we be sure that the right pope emerged after the trouble?” Yes, there were several claimants to the papacy at the same time, but only one pope. (There can be several claimants to the American presidency at once, but only one president at a time.)

All Catholics knew there could be only one pope. The question was which of the claimants was the true pope. News traveled slowly in those days. National groups confused the issue by indulging in propaganda for their own candidate. There was confusion and scandal, but the succession from Peter was never broken.

Because of civil wars in Italy, in 1309 Clement V moved to Avignon in the south of France. The next five popes were French; they lived at Avignon, but they were, of course, bishops of Rome. Pope Gregory XI died in 1378, and the conclave met in Rome to choose his successor. Urban VI, an Italian archbishop, was chosen. Thirteen French cardinals then said the wish of the Roman people to have an Italian pope had influenced the conclave in its choice, so they chose Cardinal Robert, of Geneva, as Clement VII. The Roman cardinals naturally declared this election schismatical, but the rival lines went on for nearly forty years side by side.

Clement VII was an anti-pope (a false claimant to the papacy) from 1378 to 1394. Anti-pope Benedict XIII succeeded him, and France, Lorraine, Scotland (France’s ally), Naples, and Spain declared for Benedict and regarded him as being legitimately chosen. Other countries stood by Urban VI. The confusion was increased when a local council of bishops at Pisa tried to heal the schism in 1409, but only succeeded in producing yet another anti-pope, Alexander V, who lasted for a year and was followed by John XXIII (1410-1415), who is not to be confused with the authentic Pope John XXIII, who reigned from 1958 to 1963. The solution finally came when the anti-pope John XXIII resigned, Benedict XIII was deposed, and Gregory XII, Uban’s third successor, laid down his office for the sake of peace. The Council of Constance then cleared the way for Martin V’s election.

The Western Schism is an indication of the power of Christ in his Church. No merely human institution could have survived such a test of its unity. The foundation of that unity is Peter’s authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Unity survived; its foundation survived.

Doubt about who was the rightful pope during the years of schism does not affect the position of later popes. The papacy is not handed on by one bishop of Rome to another through the laying on of hands, any more than the British prime minister hands on his office to another. As a pope does not receive his office from his predecessor, the identity of that predecessor does not really concern him. A man is pope because the Church recognizes him as bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

Once universal agreement was reached after the Western Schism as to whom the Church recognized as bishop of Rome, that person’s position as pope was clear. Who his predecessors were during the period of doubts is of no importance. His position depended on the permanence of the See of Rome, not on the identity of its bishops.

It is well worthy of note that even during the darkest days of the Great Schism nobody doubted the fact of the unity of the Church as a visible society. No one was prepared to see distinct organizations within the Church, each demanding obedience. On the contrary, everyone knew that there was but one visible authority left to his Church by Christ; all knew that the holder of that authority was the bishop of Rome; all were anxious that the identity of that person should be finally decided.

The basic truth emerges as the constant belief of the Church: Where the bishop of Rome is, there is Peter; where Peter is, there is Christ; therefore, where the bishop of Rome is, there is Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top