How on earth does the D&F relate to the Avignon papacy?Suggested reading, though a biot archaic. And published in quarto.
The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
-by Edward Gibbon
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that during this period, the turmoil was widely understood, and the problem of triple claims to the Chair of Peter was entirely clear to all, such that no binding theological statements were made during that time.At a party, a group of dissenting catholics got to criticizing the church and one lady said there have not been an unbroken line of popes. She said there was once three popes.
I knew these people were wrong (well, because I have faith in the church and I know these dissenters will say anythingt to undermine her), but I didn’t really know what they were talking about.
Has anyone heard of this? What does it refer to? Any good reading materials to help me deal with these types of thing?
Kendy
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. If it is true that having “three” of them at once doesn’t do anything to Apostolic Succession, or even to the line of the papacy, then why does it matter that no binding theological statements were made during that time?Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that during this period, the turmoil was widely understood, and the problem of triple claims to the Chair of Peter was entirely clear to all, such that no binding theological statements were made during that time.
Keep in mind that the Pope is a bishop, like any other. Having “three” of them at once doesn’t do anything to Apostolic Succession, or even to the line of the papacy.
I doubt that Jesus ever said anything in the bible to suggest that Peter was to become the earthly vicar of Christ.Show me where, and I know you can’t. that our Lord chose, other than Peter, who should lead his Church. First, if the Church of CHrist would never have indended to have an earthly vicar of Christ,. …why did Jesus say to Peter what he did?
Obviousley you do not want to hear this,…but his church would prevail against the gates of hell!!! ???
Is the gates of hell protetesitism?
The existence of cults and false gods is due to the effects of sin. That is why there is division instead of unity.Yes, God can do everything. Is it reasonably to imagine that he could on his own will divide his church? And this includes both Orthodox and Protestants,…and other cults?
Apostolic Succession is held by all bishops ordained by other valid bishops. The “legality” of the consecrations does not affect their validity. A defined theological statement, binding on the whole Church, however, must come either from an ecumenical council or from the Pope making a statement declared to be binding. ONE of those popes was the “true” pope. The others were “anti-popes.” All were legitimate bishops.I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. If it is true that having “three” of them at once doesn’t do anything to Apostolic Succession, or even to the line of the papacy, then why does it matter that no binding theological statements were made during that time?
Yes he did. Read Matthew 16:17-20.I doubt that Jesus ever said anything in the bible to suggest that Peter was to become the earthly vicar of Christ.
If you are assuming the Catholic Church is a cult. You are erroneous to held such beliefs. In the Old Testament, Kings appointed Prime Ministers their keys to their kingdom and give them responsibility. In the same light, Jesus, the King of the New Covenant gave Peter the keys to Peter to his Kingdom (The Church).The existence of cults and false gods is due to the effects of sin. That is why there is division instead of unity.
Here are the two other passages in which Peter confesses that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah:Yes he did. Read Matthew 16:17-20.
18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.
18 “The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
If that “rock” was Peter, then it seems odd that Paul would have needed to correct Peter regarding a wrong teaching. (see Gal. 2:11-16)19 “Loose upon earth”… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.
If you are assuming the Catholic Church is a cult. You are erroneous to held such beliefs. In the Old Testament, Kings appointed Prime Ministers their keys to their kingdom and give them responsibility. In the same light, Jesus, the King of the New Covenant gave Peter the keys to Peter to his Kingdom (The Church).
There is no division in the Catholic Church. There are many 10,000 plus Protestant Churches with different doctrines due to their Sola Scriptura Doctrine.
There was never a three pope, of the three so called Popes, only 2 are anti-popes, and there is only One Pope during the time.
When the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. It means specifically that Pope cannot error when it comes to teaching moral and faith and when he speaks from his Chair, or office “ex cathedra.”
If it is unclear exactly who is the real pope for several years at a time, then it can’t be true that “There is no division in the Catholic Church.”No bad Pope has preach heresy that contradict the Bible. They can be the most sinful men, but God promised the Holy Spirit will guide them in all truths and the Church shall not error.
So you don’t have the part in your Bible where Jesus says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church?Mark 8:27-30
Luke 9:18-21
Taken together, these three passages are intended to show that God revealed to the desciples the status of Jesus as the Messiah, and not the status of Peter as a pope. It is Peter who confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, not Jesus who confesses the papacy of Peter.
Catholics agree. We just do not separate Peter from his confession because of the gift of the keys.The “rock” on which Jesus was building His church was the confession of Peter, that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah.
Paul does not “correct” Peter’s teaching; he calls him for not living up to his own teaching.If that “rock” was Peter, then it seems odd that Paul would have needed to correct Peter regarding a wrong teaching. (see Gal. 2:11-16)
There was no theological controversy. There was no division about faith or morals. The “division” was political, a struggle over secular matters, during an age when national powers were trying to domiinate the Church in temporal affairs. This was hardly the Protestant rebellion.If it is unclear exactly who is the real pope for several years at a time, then it can’t be true that “There is no division in the Catholic Church.”
The fact that the Papacy survived these troubled times and was restored to carry on to this very day rather affirms that God had indeed made his will known.God is willing and able to make His will known to those who He chooses. If the papacy is important, and it was really from God, then there would be no doubt who is the pope. There would be unity on this matter.
Not so with Pope John XXIII who reigned between 1958 - 1963. He was great.A church council was held at Pisa in 1408 to try to solve the dispute but added to the problem by electing a third pope, Alexander V. He reigned briefly from June 26, 1409, to his death in 1410, when he was succeeded by John XXIII.
The bad J23.
Good overshadows bad? Make em’ forget!Not so with Pope John XXIII who reigned between 1958 - 1963. He was great.
Can someone please explain why 2 popes with the same name … being pope or antipope is irrelevant.
Use “John 23 anti pope” as a starting point.I read something about this (or something like this) on wikipedia too long ago but now am having trouble finding it even when using the “avignon papacy” as a starting point. What I remember is that there was one pope (not an avignon one) who purchased the papacy from his predecessor (who was also his god-son), but with noble intentions, and even gave it up once he had been told it was simony. I could really empathise with him. But I just can’t find the information now. Does anyone know who this was?
Catholig
Anxious, in order that he might marry, to vacate a position into which, though wholly unfit, he had been thrust by his family, Benedict IX consulted his godfather as to whether he could resign the supreme pontificate. When he was convinced that he might do so, he offered to give up the papacy into the hands of his godfather for a large sum of money. Desirous of ridding the See of Rome of such an unworthy pontiff, John Gratian in all good faith and simplicity paid him the money and was recognized as Pope in his stead.
…
Gregory VI was accused of purchasing the Papacy and freely admitted it; however, he disputed that this act, given the circumstances, constituted the crime of simony. However, the bishops of the synod impressed upon Gratian that this act was indeed simoniacal, and called upon him to resign. Gregory VI, seeing that little choice was left him, of his own accord then complied and laid down his office.
No! No! No! … there must be a better answer to your flipancy. But if you must, do explain yourself more fluidly. Thanks.Good overshadows bad? Make em’ forget!
What more are you looking for?there must be a better answer to your flipancy.