How did Apostolic Succession Survive Avignon?

Geist · #1 Apr 21, '12, 6:09 am

This has been bugging me, during the Avignon Papacy there were at times two popes, and even in one period three people claiming to be Pontiff.

How did succession truly get conveyed in this period? Thanks!

**1ke** · #2 Apr 21, '12, 6:31 am

While there were mutiple claimants to the Papacy, there was only one true Pope. And we know who he was.

Besides that, I don't think you understand apostolic succession-- it belongs to ALL the bishops. The bishops in question were all valid bishops, just not all Pope.

Pfaffenhoffen · #3 Apr 21, '12, 7:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geist

This has been bugging me, during the Avignon Papacy there were at times two popes, and even in one period three people claiming to be Pontiff.

How did succession truly get conveyed in this period? Thanks!

With great difficulty ...

empther · #4 Apr 21, '12, 7:59 am

Apostolic Succession belongs to the whole Church.

So whatever the circumstances, if Rome says some individual somewhere is a legitimate priest, bishop, or pope,
it is so.

There may be bishops in North Korea. If so, Rome sent a message to them somehow saying they were bishops. No elevation ceremony or laying on of hands was needed.

**1ke** · #5 Apr 21, '12, 8:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by empther

There may be bishops in North Korea. If so, Rome sent a message to them somehow saying they were bishops. No elevation ceremony or laying on of hands was needed.

Well, no, this isn't accurate.

ConstantineTG · #6 Apr 21, '12, 8:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by empther

Apostolic Succession belongs to the whole Church.

So whatever the circumstances, if Rome says some individual somewhere is a legitimate priest, bishop, or pope,
it is so.

There may be bishops in North Korea. If so, Rome sent a message to them somehow saying they were bishops. No elevation ceremony or laying on of hands was needed.

You need laying of hands to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Rome cannot just say one is a bishop or priest.

Theophorus · #7 Apr 21, '12, 10:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by empther

Apostolic Succession belongs to the whole Church.

So whatever the circumstances, if Rome says some individual somewhere is a legitimate priest, bishop, or pope,
it is so.

There may be bishops in North Korea. If so, Rome sent a message to them somehow saying they were bishops. No elevation ceremony or laying on of hands was needed.

A mandate is indeed required from the Apostolic See in order for episcopal consecration to occur licitly and for the Bishop to be in communion with the Pope, but no less important is the phsyical action of the laying on of hands in order to 'pass on the batton' as it were of Apostolic succession.

Usagi · #8 Apr 21, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geist

This has been bugging me, during the Avignon Papacy there were at times two popes, and even in one period three people claiming to be Pontiff.

How did succession truly get conveyed in this period? Thanks!

The papacy, like the U.S. Presidency, is conveyed by election to an office, not by direct "passing on" the way Holy Orders is conveyed.

At the end of the Avignon Schism, all three claimants resigned or were deposed, and a new guy was elected Pope. From that point on, the papacy was legitimate and secure even if none of the previous guys had been the true Pope. (As others have said, we know now who was the valid Pope throughout the schism, so that's not the situation -- but even in that extreme situation, we would still have a Pope.)

For apostolic succession, a bishop has to exist to make another bishop, so it is theoretically possible for the chain to be irretrievably broken (but also very easy to keep it going so long as there is one bishop alive. With the papacy, the current guy doesn't pick the next guy; indeed, he's dead by that time. While the period between Popes is typically brief, there's no time limit except that the current election mechanism has to be in place (so, at present, it can't be any longer than would allow a sufficient number of cardinal-electors to still be around and under the age limit). That applies even if there were invalidly elected, false, claimants in between. To return to the U.S. Presidency analogy, even if it were proven that George W. Bush had "stolen" either or both of his elections, or that Barack Obama really was foreign-born, the guys after them would still be President because a legitimate election resets the "succession" each time.

Usagi

Geist · #9 Apr 21, '12, 1:22 pm

Thanks Usagi!

curlycool89 · #10 Apr 21, '12, 7:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

With great difficulty ...

I have to say that this is one of my favourite answers to give when some ask a question in the form of "how does X do Y?"

Geist · #11 Apr 22, '12, 10:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

While there were mutiple claimants to the Papacy, there was only one true Pope. And we know who he was.

Besides that, I don't think you understand apostolic succession-- it belongs to ALL the bishops. The bishops in question were all valid bishops, just not all Pope.

I should have been more detailed, but I was thinking more of the bishops. The pope ordains bishops, so I was more confused about succession to (and those who were ordained as priests by) the bishops ordained by one of the three popes.

**1ke** · #12 Apr 22, '12, 11:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geist

I should have been more detailed, but I was thinking more of the bishops. The pope ordains bishops, so I was more confused about succession to (and those who were ordained as priests by) the bishops ordained by one of the three popes.

You are mistaken, the pope does not ordain all bishops, or even most bishops.

Usagi · #13 Apr 22, '12, 12:01 pm

Right. Any bishop can validly ordain a new priest or bishop. In the Catholic Church right now, the Pope's approval is required for liceity, but not validity. That's how we can recognize all the Orthodox bishops as valid bishops. Similarly, even though the founding SSPX bishops were excommunicated until very recently because of their illicit ordinations, they were real bishops and not even the Pope can do anything about that.

Usagi

**JimG** · #14 Apr 22, '12, 8:52 pm

Currently there is a man in Kansas who claims to be the real pope. But I have no great problem in discerning that the true apostolic succession resides with Benedict XVI.