WTF? Pope about to resign?!

[Hauldren Collider]

I've argued about religion with people far more intelligent and reasonable than Ben, and I've never gotten anywhere. Religion doesn't work like other things. You can't convince people. It's faith. By definition they believe it despite the impossibility of being proven correct.

So arguing with Ben about religion is extremely pointless.

[Guynemer]

It's like driving your truck into a concrete wall, then rearing it up and driving back at it until the thing won't drive anymore, then getting out and smashing your head against it until you pass out.

Ah. So it is not dissimilar to being a Detroit Lions fan.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah. So it is not dissimilar to being a Detroit Lions fan.

[Uncle Sparky]

Would you rather just be called ignorant?

hmmmm...American or ignorant? You're right, of course - same thing. Still, someone cure me of my ignorance and show me where you are allowed to hve a pope retire. A new pope is elected upon the death of an old pope. Rules did not allow for a living ex-pope and a living pope. When did GOD change the rules? Show me - it should be written down somewhere?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I couldn't give a **** less about Ben's religious views. He could become a Wahabi tomorrow, and it wouldn't change the fact that there were two widely recognized and factionally supported competing papacies for 40 years and multiple popes in each, and the problem became so intractible that papal secession was ultimately sorted out by creation of yet a third set of popes.

Considering I'm a former Catholic, and the particular period of history from start of the Avignon papacy through the schisms to the reformation and counter-reformation is one of the most influential periods of western history on the future shape of the world, plus one of the most salacious, amoral, brutal and downright fun , I care about the sanitizing of that history and sweeping things under the rug. Same way I used to get in Speer's face about his holocaust denial claims.

[Alexander's Horse]

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that there was some concern he was showing signs of possible early stage Alzheimers. Whether that, or the physical strain on an 85 year old, it's sensible to resign rather than try to press on with ever declining ability to do so.

You may have hit it on the head there Mike - excuse the choice of words lol - he could have had an unfavourable diagnosis. Let's hope he's okay.

This is a huge modernisation for the church - could even help with the mainstream protestants like the Anglicans and Lutherans - dying in office is pretty medieval.

JohnPaul was great Pope but stayed too long. The faithful didn't like to see him suffer the way he did at the end.

[Ben Kenobi]

I couldn't give a **** less about Ben's religious views. He could become a Wahabi tomorrow, and it wouldn't change the fact that there were two widely recognized and factionally supported competing papacies for 40 years and multiple popes in each, and the problem became so intractible that papal secession was ultimately sorted out by creation of yet a third set of popes.

Nor does it change the fact that Urban VI was elected as the successor to Gregory XII, that his election was legitimate. That he was consecrated and that the election was unanimous.

There was only ever one papacy. Urban's.

I agree, there was widespread Schism. But Schism doesn't equate with the papacy. Schism all you like, but that will not change the historical fact that Urban VI was elected and that he was Pope. Clement was neither.

Considering I'm a former Catholic,

You were asking, HC? It's *always* about religion. MtG cares about it because we share the same faith.

I care about the sanitizing of that history

How is it sanitizing the history to report that yes, Urban VI was elected by the college of cardinals? Fact. That his election was unanimous among said college? Also fact. That he was consecrates as the Pope? Fact. That he was recognized as the Pope? Also fact.

I have not denied that schism existed. But I have asserted the historical fact that there was only ever one Papacy. Schism divides, it does not replace.

Same way I used to get in Speer's face about his holocaust denial claims.

I've acknowledged the Schism occurred. France was irritated that they didn't own the Pope anymore after Gregory left Avignon and Urban was elected. So they installed a puppet. No different than what Harry VIII did many years later. Charles got his puppet to confiscate all the church property for him to the state of France, (nice windfall there). I'm not sure why MtG is defending the cause of French nationalism...

[Imran Siddiqui]

hmmmm...American or ignorant? You're right, of course - same thing. Still, someone cure me of my ignorance and show me where you are allowed to hve a pope retire. A new pope is elected upon the death of an old pope. Rules did not allow for a living ex-pope and a living pope. When did GOD change the rules? Show me - it should be written down somewhere?

So you are just trying to double down on the ignorance... be my guest then (hint: you may want to see Canon 332 that explicitly allows a Pope to resign his office).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nor does it change the fact that Urban VI was elected as the successor to Gregory XII, that his election was legitimate. That he was consecrated and that the election was unanimous.

There was only ever one papacy. Urban's.

The legitimacy of that election was challenged. And in fact, under the rules in effect at the time, the cardinals had the right to challenge it. The issue wasn't as clear cut as the French owning the papacy. Someone always owned the pope. That's kind of what happens when you resort to bribery, intimidation and manipulation to get elected. And the goals were never advancement of the church or spread of the faith - they were always material and venal.

Funny that you defend the legitimacy of that process when it is 100% opposite of the modern process.

I agree, there was widespread Schism. But Schism doesn't equate with the papacy. Schism all you like, but that will not change the historical fact that Urban VI was elected and that he was Pope. Clement was neither.

Clement was in fact elected by a conclave of cardinals in Fondi, Italy. The Catholic church has never had an issue with ex post facto rulings, and the process by which that conclave was assembled and voted wasn't invalidated until nearly 75 years after the fact. Reality, at the time, they had the authority.

You were asking, HC? It's *always* about religion. MtG cares about it because we share the same faith.

The history is much more interesting. Buying cardinals, selling indulgences, popes with mistresses and bastard kids. good stuff.

I have not denied that schism existed. But I have asserted the historical fact that there was only ever one Papacy. Schism divides, it does not replace.

It's a sanitization because the entire process was absolutely base and corrupt. It wasn't sweetness and light and righteousness and legitimacy vs those evil schismatics. It was a base power struggle between two equally venal and corrupt factions, and the split was roughly half and half. The Italian cardinals weren't happy with Urban VI, they just figured having him close at hand, they could manipulate him and help him have an "accident" if need be. After his "mad" calls for cardinals to stop taking bribes in everything they did, did you see any Italian cardinals agree and give up any of their ill-gotten gains? No, it was just an issue of who were going to be the puppet masters. Martin found the temporary solution to the problem in getting all sides to focus on an external enemy, hence the Hussite wars.

When France, England, etc. took all that "church property" - how exactly do you think the church obtained that property?

[Ben Kenobi]

The legitimacy of that election was challenged

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

And the goals were never advancement of the church or spread of the faith - they were always material and venal.

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.

Seems to me Urban did have motivation for the advancement of the Church and spreading the Faith.

Funny that you defend the legitimacy of that process when it is 100% opposite of the modern process.

The historical facts stand in Urban's favor.

Clement was in fact elected by a conclave of cardinals

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.

Reality, at the time, they had the authority.

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.

It's a sanitization because the entire process was absolutely base and corrupt. It wasn't sweetness and light and righteousness and legitimacy vs those evil schismatics.

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

Martin found the temporary solution to the problem in getting all sides to focus on an external enemy, hence the Hussite wars.

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

When France, England, etc. took all that "church property" - how exactly do you think the church obtained that property?

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

[Uncle Sparky]

So you are just trying to double down on the ignorance... be my guest then (hint: you may want to see Canon 332 that explicitly allows a Pope to resign his office).

You mean 332 subsection 2? Thank you for showing me... you're a credit to your American race. So, you're saying that the average American knows this? Wow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

If they were not excommunicated how could their authority have been eliminated?

[snoopy369]

You mean 332 subsection 2? Thank you for showing me... you're a credit to your American race. So, you're saying that the average American knows this? Wow.

The average American doesn't challenge the actions of others without knowing whether that action has a foundation or not.

(Or perhaps they do... sigh.)

[Ben Kenobi]

If they were not excommunicated how could their authority have been eliminated?

Schismatics insofar as they are in schism are no longer in good standing with the church. They incur various impediments, including, but not limited to their ability to perform the sacraments.

They were in Schism when they refused to submit to Pope Urban VI. Their act of disobedience in attempting to reform the conclave has no force outside of the conclave and their group. This is the point. In order to convey the authority of the Church they cannot be under discipline. Any decisions made by said 'conclave' also would not be licit.

Eventually, this was dealt with through excommunication when the disobedience was sufficiently obstinate with Clement's successor. He was requested to rejoin but refused.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Schismatics insofar as they are in schism are no longer in good standing with the church. They incur various impediments, including, but not limited to their ability to perform the sacraments.

They were in Schism when they refused to submit to Pope Urban VI. Their act of disobedience in attempting to reform the conclave has no force outside of the conclave and their group. This is the point. In order to convey the authority of the Church they cannot be under discipline.

Which body took away their authority? What were they subjected to? After all other Schismatics were under discipline (or excommunication). Seems like a cop out answer.

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