| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.966
Post: 14.052 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
A lesson in papal history
April 23, 2018
Urban VI was the Pope whose personal failings, including an irascible inclination to torture and execute his Cardinals, led to the Great Western Schism.
There were very serious grounds for suspecting that his election, in 1378, was invalid on account of duress; the Cardinal Electors were under the menace of being torn to pieces by the Roman mob. Indeed, the dear little 1958 CTS pamphlet listing the popes, which never leaves my desk, says simply that his election "has been generally deemed valid" ... not a very wholehearted or ringing endorsement.
A few months later, most of the Cardinals repudiated their allegiance and declared the election invalid.
Yet he is always included nowadays in the list of 'genuine' popes, and the prelate, 'Clement VII', whom the Cardinals then elected in his place, is relegated to the list of 'antipopes'.
It was not until 1429, when 'Clement VIII' abdicated, that Christendom at last had only one claimant to the See of Peter.
Half a century of Schism.
Why am I reminding you of this?
Because, in our present crisis, glib people talk easily about getting rid of flawed popes. Urban VI was, surely, among the half-dozen most flawed popes ever, but securing the consent and collaboration to get rid of him was found to be difficult ... nay rather, in view of the fact that he never was successfully disposed of, one might say 'impossible'.
And, during that half-century, there never was an undisputed pope. Indeed, from 1409 until 1415, there were as many as three claimants simultaneously disputing the cathedra Petri.
I feel that this demonstrates the immense dangers of approaching ecclesial crises with simplistic 'remedies'.
Devising fictional solutions to real problems is no answer. Prayer and the bearing of witness are the Catholic remedy.
I don't think anyone today - even the most unyielding of Bergoglio critics - realistically thinks there is any way to 'get rid' of this pope short of an act of God, e.g., death in his appointed time. And like Urban VI, he will always be listed among the 'genuine' popes, which he is, unfortunately, both de jure and de facto, no matter how much one may wish to conjure him away!
So it's hard to understand those who are always ragging on the 'cowardice' of Cardinal Burke and the handful like him who have consistently raised their voices in civilized discourse against the many deviations of this pope from Catholic orthodoxy, because there really isn't anything more concrete they can do other than point out the errors and the corrections necessary.
If they can't even get Bergoglio to acknowledge a formal letter - or more - sent to him, surely they can't expect him to acknowledge any errors they point out, much less any corrections offered! Let the critics of Burke propose something concrete they think will budge Bergoglio one iota from his chosen course! They don't because they can't.
This pipe dream of having a rump convention of dissatisfied cardinals and bishops meeting to denounce Bergoglio formally - as a heretic, an apostate, unfit to rule, whatever - is just that. Because other than the two surviving DUBIA Cardinals, Burke and Brandmueller, and Cardinal Zen, because of the China issue, there have been no other cardinals willing - or daring, perhaps, is the word - to go on record as criticizing Bergoglio in any way.
Cardinal Mueller has been doing so - in his usual muddled, inconsistent way (one day, he blows hot, another cold) - since he left the Curia, but one finds his statements more self-serving than anything. The cardinals of the Curia - including Cardinal Sarah - are under estoppel in this case: while they are serving at Bergoglio's will, they cannot possibly 'go against' him in any way -principle would require any such opponent to resign his office first.
So a rump convention of 3 cardinals (out of almost 200), and possibly ten bishops (out of more than 5,000) - none more have come out openly against Bergoglio - would really be a joke no one could take seriously. And which none of the 3 cardinals and 10 bishops concerned, to begin with, would even consider 'realistic' in any way.
That said, I briefly googled Urban VI and found this early in his Wikipedia bio:
Bartolomeo Prignano (pope from 1387-1389) was a devout monk and learned casuist, trained at Avignon. On 21 March 1364 he was consecrated Archbishop of Acerenza in the Kingdom of Naples. He became Archbishop of Bari in 1377.
Prignano had developed a reputation for simplicity and frugality and a head for business when acting Vice-Chancellor. He also demonstrated a penchant for learning, and, was without famiglia in an age of nepotism, although once in the papal chair he elevated four cardinal-nephews and sought to place one of them in control of Naples. His great faults undid his virtues: Ludwig Pastor summed up his character: "He lacked Christian gentleness and charity. He was naturally arbitrary and extremely violent and imprudent, and when he came to deal with the burning ecclesiastical question of the day, that of reform, the consequences were disastrous."
Sound familiar? It boggles the mind how one can turn from being a devout monk to a mad pope, but it happened! (Or perhaps, like a certain Argentine prelate, he was merely showing his true colors once he tasted power!) There's another brief online bio of Urban VI that begins this way: "Through the centuries many popes displayed distinct unchristian behaviour. Only one of them, however, showed such erratic behaviour that he became generally known as "The Mad Pope". His papal name was Urban VI, but he was born in Naples as Bartolomeo Prignano (±1318-1389). He was a quarrelsome man, who had his own cardinals tortured and brutally murdered. His election had ended the Papal Exile (1306-1376), but his capricious ways resulted in the Great Schism (1378-1417)..."
http://madmonarchs.guusbeltman.nl/madmonarchs/urban6/urban6_bio.htm
The rest reads really lurid, and the stuff of adventure novels, but court life, both royal and papal, in the late Middle Ages appeared to have been quite lurid, and the adventures truly adventurous. In any case, after much searching, I finally found out that the conclave that elected Urban VI consisted of 16 cardinals (it would be many centuries before the cardinal electors ever reached a number beyond 50), so it is not surprising that one of mad Urban's moves was to name 29 new cardinals to pack the rolls in his favor if there were to be a new conclave.
And finally, for more context on the so-called Great Schism in the Church:
Urban VI (1318-1389) was pope from 1378 to 1389. During his pontificate began the Great Schism of the Church, during which rival popes at Rome and Avignon claimed legitimacy and divided the loyalties of Europe.
Bartolomeo Prignano, who became Urban II, was born in Naples. He became archbishop of Bari and an influential figure in the papal court, although he was never a cardinal. Before his pontificate, he was known as a competent Church official who was interested in reforming the Church to meet the growing criticism of the times.
Much of this criticism stemmed from the "Babylonian Captivity" (1309-1377), or removal of the papacy to Avignon in France. Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome in 1377 but died in 1378. When the College of Cardinals met to elect his successor, feeling ran high. Outside the conclave, the people of Rome clamored for the election of an Italian pope and even threatened to murder the cardinals. On April 8, 1378, the cardinals decided that, under the circumstances, the wisest choice was Prignano, who took the name Urban VI.
But almost immediately, the cardinals began to quarrel with the new pope, who angered them both by his attempts to make unwelcome reforms in the papal court and by his undiplomatic personality. Thirteen of the cardinals left Rome [remember there were only 16 who elected Urban VI] and went to the city of Fondi. On Aug. 9, 1378, they declared Urban's election invalid, and on September 20 they elected a new pope, Clement VII (Robert of Geneva, a cousin of the king of France). Thus began the Great Schism.
Even today there is disagreement about the legitimacy of the dissident cardinals' action and about their motives. The cardinals themselves argued that Urban's election was invalid because it oc
curred under duress, but they waited four months before they objected. Another factor was the personality of Urban VI, who by all accounts was short-tempered, stubborn, and, in the opinion of some, abnormally violent. Undoubtedly he alienated the cardinals by his manner. But it is probable also that France feared a loss of power from the papacy's return to Rome and so persuaded the French faction of the cardinals to bring a pope to Avignon again.
In any case, the Great Schism brought Urban VI the support of France's enemies and brought Clement VII the support of France and its allies, creating years of bitterness and much loss of prestige for the papacy.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/04/2018 10:38] |