Avignon And Rome

[Brother Adam]

Okay, here is what I don't get.

So we have the Roman Pope, Pope Urban VI, and then the ultramontani electing Clement VII, and they were supposibly popes at the same time, but they denounced each other, and no one quite seemed to know who to follow.

Then finally in 1417 we get Martin V from the council of Pisa after they both kicked the bucket. So who was actually Pope during that time? Urban VI? The college of Cardinals?

Hrm? Who?

[DojoGrant]

I asked this in the Q&A section a while back. There could be only one Pope, so one line was legitimate, and the others were not. We know it was not the Avignon one, because they never rescended when it was settled between Rome and Pisa (it died off later), so the best bet is the original line, started in Rome. Their argument that the Roman Pope was not legitimate is that they felt coerced to elect him (due to rioting and threat of possible death by Roman mobs if an Italian Pope was not elected). However, I believe that the Holy Spirit still works anyway, as its not the men who elect the Pope, but the Holy Spirit working through them.

[Hananiah]

St. Catherine of Sienna said Urban VI was the true Pope. If the Seraphic virgin said so, that's good enough for me.

[the lumberjack]

isn't it true that they excommunicated each other?

and that there was noone in the Catholic Church for a good while, since everyone under either pope had been excommunicated?

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]the lumberjack writes:[/b]
and that there was noone in the Catholic Church for a good while, since everyone under either pope had been excommunicated?[/quote]
No. Only one pope was validly elected (Urban VI) by the College of Cardinals. While that pope lived, no one else could legitimately claim to be the pope unless Urban VI abdicated. Clement VII, while he may have believed he was the pope and while many may have believed that, was not the pope. He was an anti-pope.

Thus, the only one of the two with authority to excommunicate was Pope Urban VI. Clement VII, and his followers, were validly excommunicated by Urban VI. Meanwhile, the excommunication by Clement VII was not valid, so Urban VI and his followers -- that is to say, true Catholics -- were not really excommunicated. There was only one pope, and those who followed him and believed that he was the pope were the orthodox Catholics of the time, not the followers of Clement VII.

[Guest AloysiusGhost]

exactly my thoughts, GF

glad to aggree with you on something

Peace to all

Pax Amorque Christi

[saintwannab7]

wasn't the Avignon guy just elected by French officals?

[peach_cube]

13 members of the Sacred College met in secret and elected another Pope, Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), who moved his claimed see back to Avignon, where the Papal residence was located from 1305 to 1375. (Due to violence breaking out among the Noble families in Rome {Many were afraid that this violence could put the Papacy in physical danger..thus the move})

[Enda]

Wasn't Urban VI the Pope that St. Cathreine of Sieena told that if he didn't return to Rome God would take his life, and the day after he refused he died?

Since we're on this topic, what do yall think about the Pope moving? The Pope can't change his diocese, he must remain the Bishop of Rome, so it's pretty obvious in my opnion that he needs to stay there, but sometimes I think it would be best for the Church for him to take a tempoary exile. Like if being in Rome would endanger his life. I don't believe the circumstances surrounding Urban VI's move to Avingon were justified however. There needs to be defentie certainity being in Rome would endanger the Pope's life, like if there was ever a military ivansion of the Vatican, which happened under Napeleon. The Pope however, didn't leave, but was still virtually useless to the Church as his status was "Prisoner of the Vatican", and wasn't allowed to make any prouncments to the outside world. He should have fled somewhere else, in my opnion.

Edited May 22, 2004 by Enda

[Katholikos]

Here's a modern antipope, complete with a picture of him on his "throne."

There are others.


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Gregory_XVII"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Gregory_XVII[/url]

[p0lar_bear]

truecatholic.org elected an antipope too, Pius XIII

[popestpiusx]

My favorite is Pope Michael in Kansas City. He was kicked out of both the FSSP and the SSPX so he decided to have three or four family members and friends elect him pope. He is a total nutcase, but very entertaining. [url="http://www.popemichael.homestead.com/"]http://www.popemichael.homestead.com/[/url]

[p0lar_bear]

Brother Adam,

This is rather long, but might help...

The Western Schism represents one of the greatest internal crises in the Church’s history. Because of France’s influence in Church matters, the papacy was moved from Rome to Avignon, France from 1309-77. This period is known in Church history as the “Babylonian Captivity,” because the duration of the papal residence at that locale was about the same as the Jews’ exile in the 6th century B.C. Nine months after the death of Pope Benedict XI (1303-04), Clement V (1305-14) became Pope under the strong influence of King Philip of France. Crowned in Lyons, France, Clement V never set foot in Rome and eventually took up papal residence in Avignon because of the influence of King Philip.

During the Avignon period, all of the Popes were Frenchmen. The last, Gregory XI, returned the papal headquarters to Rome in 1377, in part at the urging of St. Catherine of Siena. Then, following the death of Gregory XI in 1378, the cardinals chose an Italian, Pope Urban VI (1378-1389). Because Rome had fallen into disrepair during the Avignon period, many of the French cardinals, who constituted the majority of the College of Cardinals, urged the new Pope to return to Avignon, so dissatisfied were they were with the condition of the Eternal City.
Urban VI was well-regarded for his austerity and simplicity, his devotion to the Church, and his considerable executive skill:

[quote]But he had one fatal defect: He lacked prudence and suavity; he was irascible, hot-tempered, stubborn, and inconsiderate in the extreme.  The violent haste with which he undertook the reform of the Curia quickly turned the Cardinals against him.  St. Catherine’s grave admonition to moderation unfortunately fell on deaf ears.  As a result, a number of Cardinals left the Curia a few weeks after Urban’s election—mainly the French Cardinals, who were embittered by the Pope’s harsh rejection of every suggestion to return to Avignon and [because he] ecclesiastically as well as politically rejected the ideas and methods that had developed during the exile of the papacy in southern France.  The rupture grew into open revolt when, on August 9, 1378, 13 Cardinals declared the election of Urban VI invalid and on September 20, with the support of the French King and Queen Johanna of Naples, elected Robert of Geneva as anti-pope, who called himself Clement VII (1378-94).  Thus began the Great Western Schism, which brought down upon the church so much tragic suffering and injury.  Even though Urban VI contributed a goodly share to the outbreak of the schism, still the chief responsibility must be borne by the dissenting Cardinals (Francis X. Seppelt and Clement Löffler, translated by Horace Frommelt, A Short History of the Popes, B.Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO., 1932, pp. 231-32; emphasis added).[/quote]

Pope Urban VI excommunicated Clement VII and his adherents and declared a crusade against the anti-pope. For his part, Clement VII “excommunicated” Urban VI and also initiated a crusade against the genuine pontiff.

In the authentic papal line, there followed Boniface IX (1389-1404); Innocent VII (1404-06); and Gregory XII (1406-15). On the antipapal Avignon side, there was Benedict XIII (1394-1417).

Gregory XII conveyed his desire to foster unity in the Church. The treaty of Marseilles followed in April 1407, in which a personal meeting between the Pope and the anti-pope was arranged. Pope Gregory XII was open to resigning the papacy, but reneged on the arranged meeting for various reasons, including fear for his liberty if he attended the meeting and pressure from his relatives, who had benefited from his election and therefore opposed his resignation.

The Church’s cardinals in general became very upset by Pope Gregory XII’s decision, an ill will which was compounded by the pontiff’s recent promotions to the Sacred College; thus the cardinals abandoned Gregory. The French Cardinals also abandoned the anti-pope Benedict XIII; following the death of his staunchest supporter, the Duke of Orleans, the nation of France withdrew its obedience to the pseudo-pontiff. The cardinals of Rome and those of Avignon then joined forces and called the Council of Pisa. They invalidly declared that Pope Gregory XII was a schismatic and heretic. They also correctly, although not authoritatively, did the same with the anti-pope Benedict XII. In addition, they elected a second anti-pope, Alexander V (1409-10), who was followed in the Pisa line by the anti-pope John XXIII (1410-15), who should not be confused with the validly elected Successor of Peter of the same name in the 20th century (Ibid., pp. 237-38).

In 1413, largely because of the efforts of the German King Sigismund (1410-37), the Council of Constance was called to mend the rift in Christendom. Providentially, at this time, King Ladislaus of Naples captured Rome and compelled the anti-pope John XXIII to take refuge in Florence. In appealing to King Sigismund for protection, John XXIII agreed to the German king’s request for a general (i.e., ecumenical) council, signing the bull that would convoke the Council of Constance in November 1414. The plan for Constance appeared doomed, though, when King Ladislaus died in August 1414 and John XXIII considered reconquering Rome. However, the College of Cardinals, which included some of John XXIII’s most prominent advocates, urged him to keep his promise (Ibid., p. 239).

The Council of Constance eventually only recognized as papal legates Pope Gregory XII and the anti-pope Benedict XIII. The anti-pope John XXIII agreed to abdicate any claim to the papacy in March 1415. Then Pope Gregory XII reexpressed his willingness to resign, provided that the Council would have itself convoked anew by him; this was an essential papal act for the Council to be legitimate, because, again, a council has no authority without the recognition of the Pope. The Council of Constance agreed and Gregory XII resigned. Meanwhile, Benedict XIII refused to abdicate his papal claims, but King Sigismund undermined his support via the Treaty of Narbonne (December 1415), an agreement whereby various political entities withdraw obedience from the anti-pope. Finally, on July 26, 1417, the Council of Constance deposed the anti-pope Benedict XIII (Ibid., p. 241).

On November 11 of that same year, the Council of Constance finally elected Pope Martin V (1417-31), and the Council finally dissolved in 1418. Of crucial significance, Pope Martin opposed the conciliaristic efforts of the Council Fathers. The Pope approved “all that the Council had resolved as a Council in matters of faith,” but clearly rejected the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions, which declared that the Council received its authority directly from God, and that even a Pope was subject to it regarding both matters of faith and the disciplinary measures the council adopted to help resolve the schism and foster reform in general in the Church (Fr. John Laux, Church History (TAN Books, Rockford, Ill., 1989, p. 396-408; cf. Seppelt and Löffler, A Short History of the Popes, p. 240).

The battle regarding conciliarism continued in the 1430s. It regarded a renegade version of the Council of Basel. A legitimate council of this name was convoked by Pope Martin V in 1431 and existed until 1437, when Pope Eugenius IV moved it first to Ferrara, Italy, and then to Florence in 1439. We know it as the ecumenical Council of Florence, which formally operated from 1438-45. When Eugenius IV moved the council to Ferrara, some leaders in the Church attempted to continue Basel invalidly. Thus, in the First Session of the Council of Florence in January 1438, the Council fathers declared the Council of Basel transferred to Ferrara from Basel, and “annulled in advance any an all future decrees of the Basel assembly.” This was all done under the leadership of Pope Eugenius IV, who in February 1438 excommunicated all of the members of the Basel assembly.

The Basel assembly continued to sit until 1449. They responded to Eugenius’ excommunications by “deposing” him as a “heretic” and “schismatic” in 1439, and that same year elected the anti-pope Felix V. The Basle assembly also reaffirmed the heresy of conciliarism, a heresy which Eugenius formally condemned at the Council of Florence. The renegade Basel assembly was finally dissolved by Pope Nicholas V in 1449.

[the lumberjack]

this is crazy...all the extra popes I mean...

good to know that us prots aren't the only ones with a hellthy amount of nutjobs.



love.

[foundsheep]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='May 24 2004, 08:58 PM'] My favorite is Pope Michael in Kansas City. He was kicked out of both the FSSP and the SSPX so he decided to have three or four family members and friends elect him pope. He is a total nutcase, but very entertaining. [url="http://www.popemichael.homestead.com/"]http://www.popemichael.homestead.com/[/url] [/quote]
That is a trip!