WTF? Pope about to resign?!

[snoopy369]

I think some of what Ben's alluding to is sort of like golf. If you're in Schism, you stop giving the Sacrament (et al) voluntarily, because you know you oughtn't.

That said, you all are arguing over something that's really a fine point of distinction. The words don't really matter. If Ben wants to say there is one unbroken line, so what? In one way of looking at it there is; in another there wasn't. If Ben's denying that there was a major political upheaval, then he's an idiot; no Catholic who knows anything about history would deny that. However, trying to argue that God wasn't the one choosing the popes with a confirmed Catholic is pretty dumb. You might as well tell him that transubstantiation isn't real. It's a point of faith; he can always interpret the evidence to support it, and you can always interpret the evidence to deny it. Who cares?

[Ben Kenobi]

Which body took away their authority?

The body that has Pope Urban VI as it's head?

What were they subjected to?

In terms of punishment? Until they submitted to Urban, they couldn't perform the sacraments licitly.

After all other Schismatics were under discipline (or excommunication). Seems like a cop out answer.

Excommunication isn't the first step. It's the last step when other means of reconciliation have failed.

It seems to be that your so called schismatics appeared to be in good standing and did not have their standing removed at all.

Only in territory controlled by France or one of her allies, were they were tolerated. In, say, Germany? They would have been arrested and imprisoned. One of the first steps by Urban was to go after the kingdoms one by one. Eventually, even France captulated and Clement's successor in pretence had to flee France altogether.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think some of what Ben's alluding to is sort of like golf. If you're in Schism, you stop giving the Sacrament (et al) voluntarily, because you know you oughtn't.

Think of it like a circuit breaker. Same function. Choose to go into schism, the breaker triggers. Everytime. Doesn't matter what you say about yourself - what other Kingdoms may say abou you and recognize you - that doesn't change the fact that you are no longer in good standing with the Church.

That said, you all are arguing over something that's really a fine point of distinction.

Actually, Imran's point is right at the crux of this dispute.

The words don't really matter.

Perhaps not to you - but they mean everything in this dispute. Another way to look at it thusly. By what authority would Clement be recognised as Pope? By the second conclave. By what authority would one be compelled to recognize the second conclave? Because they are bishops of the Catholic church. What did the same members (and more) choose to recognize as the pope? Urban. They all voted for Urban. This I believe is fatal to their cause. You cannot argue that their votes in the case of Clement are legitimate and then argue their votes in favour of Urban are not.

If Ben wants to say there is one unbroken line, so what?

What I believe is irrelevant. The historical facts of the matter are quite different. The historical facts show an unbroken succession, which is crucial to the case of Rome, and the eventual resolution under Martin.

If Ben's denying that there was a major political upheaval, then he's an idiot; no Catholic who knows anything about history would deny that.

Which I did not say. The Schism very much existed....

However, trying to argue that God wasn't the one choosing the popes with a confirmed Catholic is pretty dumb. You might as well tell him that transubstantiation isn't real. It's a point of faith; he can always interpret the evidence to support it, and you can always interpret the evidence to deny it. Who cares?

Except for the fact that I'm not invoking my faith here. I'm invoking the historical facts and circumstances here. The facts defend Urban's case over Clement's.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And it's been already demonstrated that Urban's election was legitimate.

You mean the way it's been already demonstrated that South Carolina's secession was illegitimate? Or that Texas, when it came low-crawling on its belly back to the union, waived any future right to secede. It's been "demonstrated" by the winners going back and ruling after the fact on the results they favored.

Sounds like a strawman. Urban was not a cardinal or a bishop at the time - he was elected because they suspected he would be easily controlled. He turned some of the cardinals away from him when he attacked simony and argued for Church reform.

He was their boy before being elected, and expected to remain their boy afterwards. Once he wandered off course a bit, it's not really clear if he was arguing for reform, or merely the action moving up to the papal level and then being dispensed downward as the pope pleased, rather than the traditional method of the cardinals and archbishops buying in then controlling all the day to day action.

The historical facts stand in Urban's favor.

The official history as promulgated by Urban's line of successors does.

True, but all of those same cardinals had already elected Urban. There was already a pope at the time, Urban, and so they had no authority to form their own conclave and elect another. This was simply schism - they broke away and denied the authority of the rightful pope at the time, Urban. In doing so, they eliminated their own authority.

Only excommunication removes their authority. In fact, as I note two instances with Jan Hus below, the Roman popes after Gregory XII and the post-schismatic church accepted hundreds of actions by "schismatic" archbishops and cardinals.

Not so. Once Urban was Pope they had a choice. Submit or Schism. They chose Schism, and as soon as they chose that - they deprived themselves of their own authority to appoint anyone. Their authority as Cardinals rests in their fidelity to the Church - not opposition to it.

Really now? And what ecclesiatical order or doctrine, as it was in effect in 1379, so held?

BTW, the Church and Pope Gregory XII disagreed with you. They had no problem burning Jan Hus at the stake even though Hus had been excommunicated by the Pisan pope Alexander V and imprisoned by order of Pisan pope John XXIII, who also directed a committee of three bishops to investigate charges of heresy. Hus was tried and executed/murdered by authority of Gregory XII who apparently saw no defect or lack of authority by Alexander V or John XXIII in their excommunication and arrest.

I've stuck to the facts of the matter. You are the only one who's imputed evil = Schismatics.

The term "anti-pope" ring a bell? The revisionist history paints the "anti-popes" as heretics, blah blah blah. Last I checked, heretics != good.

I see. It couldn't have ever been desire for renewal and advancement of the faith.

The execution/murder of Hus and getting their asses kicked repeatedly in the Hussite crusades didn't exactly do much for advancement of anything other than the Protestan reformation.

They built it and bought it for the most part - the Church in England predated the Normans. Same in France with the Capetians.[/QUOTE]

They had peasants provide the labor, and they extracted lands and money by ecclesiatical taxation and bribery, er, um, "gifts", once they figured out which factions to align with to give them the necessary muscle. I'm not talking about some random monastery. I'm talking about the vast land holdings and taxing power of the church.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Only in territory controlled by France or one of her allies, were they were tolerated. In, say, Germany? They would have been arrested and imprisoned. One of the first steps by Urban was to go after the kingdoms one by one. Eventually, even France captulated and Clement's successor in pretence had to flee France altogether.

That was nearly 40 years later. How about Fondi? 135 km south of Rome, in Italy? Urban VI decided not to go there when summoned by the conclave of cardinals who decided to elect a new pope, because he would have been arrested. The fact that various factions had various nobles and princes and such acting as their henchmen in different areas doesn't really lend any legitimacy to anyone.

[Sava]

He probably resigned because something big in the child rape scandal was about to break. There's a special place in hell for people that enable the rape of children... and those who idolize them in their avatars.

[DaShi]

Well he is in Italy so maybe we can hope that some Godfather type **** will go down?

I sincerely hope you learn something at that 3rd rate school you're going to. They certainly aren't teaching you to think.

[DaShi]

I think the media is a little anti-catholic sometimes.

Says the butt-buddy of the most anti-Catholic poster on this forum.

[DaShi]

Snoop Popey Pope. He's planning a rap career.

Better than Big Baby Pope.

[Alexander's Horse]

They say there is nothing worse than a convert. This is why catholics aren't very evangelical lol.

[The Mad Monk]

This thread is popeless.

[Dinner]

To solve our popless problem here are some pictures of Ratzi the Nazi.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, I don't hold that against him. He evaded mandatory DJ membership until he was 14 and DJ members transferred to HJ, because it wasn't particularly enforced. A high school age male not joining HJ would have stuck out like a sore thumb and he and his family probably wouldn't be around if he'd refused. Sort of a bg demand to put on a 14 year old. especially when there was no apparent benefit to anyone by resisting. He was later drafted into an AA unit, then deserted as soon as it was relatively safe to do so. There's no evidence Ratzinger or any of his immediate family were ever NSDAP members at all.

Quite a bit different situation, than, say, Kurt Waldheim.

[Alexander's Horse]

what surprises me is more wasn't made of his desertion at the end of the war

[Dr Strangelove]

Personally I think that he's doing the sensible thing. It's cruel to force a sickly man to continue working until the day he dies and an organization the size of the Roman Catholic church shouldn't be left under the guidance of someone who can't manage. Hopefully he'll set a trend.

Now. Who's next in line?