Why did the pope move the Holy See to Avignon?

During the medieval ages, the first french pope was chosen. Instead of moving to rome, he stayed in France and forced the papacy to move to Avignon. This caused division in the church, and almost caused a schism.

Why did the pope choose to stay in Avignon?

The Pope didn’t technically move the Holy See. He was still the Bishop of Rome. He just wasn’t living in Rome.

To over simplify, it was due to secular politics.

Read this, it might help: catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-avignon-the-babylon-of-the-west

For what it’s worth, here is a theology paper I did concerning the Avignon papacy episode.
Were there 3 Popes at the same time?

I read the article, thanks. But I question the last sentence (which lacked a footnote):

In what manner has the Church made this recognition? Writing in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae (1987, #25, p.14), historian John F. Broderick notes:

To this day the Church has never made any official, authoritative pronouncement about the papal lines of succession for this confusing period; nor has Martin V or any of his successors. Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions; although they tend to favor the Roman line.

Has the Church made an official, authoritative pronouncement since this article was published in 1987?

Broderick makes it sound like our acceptance of the common list is a general consensus of theologians, not an official recognition by the Church. it is my personal opinion that there was no legitimate Pope after Urban-6 (until Martin-5), because (obviously) nobody was universally recognized as Bishop of Rome (which is what must happen for somebody to be a Pope). I mean, good grief - there were three Colleges of Cardinals. What a mess!

I think Urban VI excommunicated the antipope and his cardinals, which would seem to make their future elections and consecrations uncanonical and invalid. If I’m right, that would seem to make the Roman line the only option, don’t you think?

Can you cite that? I don’t think you can. Especially since the very same Cardinals who elected Urban-6 turned around and elected Clement-7 (just five months later). I don’t think Urban excommunicated his OWN electors within the first five months of his reign.

If I’m right, that would seem to make the Roman line the only option, don’t you think?

Not necessarily. A person is known as the Bishop of Rome (and thus Pope) by a consensus of the Catholic Church, regardless of his manner of his election. My position is that there was no such consensus after the death of Urban-6, until Martin-5.

I will compare two Church Histories on this point. The first is J.E. Darras’ 4 volume book, “A General History of the Catholic Church.” The other is Philip Hughes’ 3 volume book, “History of the Church.” In Volume 3 Chapter 3 Section 1 Part 5, Darras says: Urban made a last effort; he offered to lay the validity of his claim before a general council. [The Cardinals’] refusal of this proposal will ever remain an indelible stain upon their memory. Urban then created twenty-six new cardinals to fill the places left vacant by the seceders…[but] never once resorted to the spiritual weapons at his command, while the cardinals flooded the world with copies of a manifesto, in which they abused the Pope as an apostate and an intruder. Then, in Parts 8-9 of this section, a few pages later, Darras says: From Rome and Avignon, their respective residences, the two Pontiffs launched their anathemas against each other. Philip Hughes’ book is more summary. In Volume 3 Chapter 3 Section 4 Part 1 he says: [The Cardinals] went into conclave [again], and at the first ballot they chose as pope Robert of Geneva. He called himself Clement VII. … For the next nine months the rival popes confronted each other in Italy, separated by a mere sixty miles and their own armed forces. Urban, on November 29, excommunicated Clement and some of his chief supporters. Since Clement VII was excommunicated, it would seem impossible for him to have become pope upon the death of Urban VI, as previous antipopes had done. Therefore, the only successor the pope could have had, it seems to me, is the one who was elected by the Cardinals whom Urban VI had appointed, and they elected Boniface IX.

Not necessarily. A person is known as the Bishop of Rome (and thus Pope) by a consensus of the Catholic Church, regardless of his manner of his election.

Do you have a citation for that? I am inclined to doubt it for several reasons. One is, Canon Law tells us how the election of a pontiff is to proceed, and the consensus of the Church seems to have nothing to do with it. It seems to me that the decision of the Cardinals meeting together in a consistory is what counts, and the lawful pope, Urban VI, seems to have appointed sufficient cardinals to elect his successor even without the ones in league with the antipope (and excommunicant) Clement VII.

A Pope cannot be excommunicate (he is the only Catholic who is not subject to one bit of Canon Law or its punishments). If Clement (being elected by the Cardinals in an otherwise lawful manner) became Pope upon Urban’s death (as is the usual custom), the excommunication would go away in that instant.

Do you have a citation for that? I am inclined to doubt it for several reasons. One is, Canon Law tells us how the election of a pontiff is to proceed, and the consensus of the Church seems to have nothing to do with.

The Conclave is the consent of the Church. I did not mean to imply the laity (although, in the past, Popes were selected in popular elections - can you imagine???) In the past, when Popes were appointed by Emperors, the consent was implied by the fact that he was allowed to assume and fulfill the duties of his Office.

But I’m not disputing the Latin line (though I personally don’t believe there were any legitimate Popes between Urban and Martin, but, if there were, it would be the Latin line). I’m just saying that the Church has never authoritatively defined the line, and it’s improper for us to say that She has (and, thus, I am perfectly free to believe and proclaim that I dispute the legitimacy of the antepenultimate and later “popes”).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.