[sqircles]

I have recently deepened my search in Christianity which started with the Catholic Church, one of few points I struggle with when it comes to Catholicism is the papacy, and the Avignon Papacy debacle and the events that followed (a la Western Schism) has quite a bit to do with that. I was a little confused by what they meant here by “threatening with the Avignon Papacy.” If anyone else is curious, I think the phrase “Babylonian Captivity” will provide better context, as it is what some contemporaries and later historians called it as it appeared that the Church had been “captured” by French political interests, with the popes being seen as too cozy to the French king and less focused on their universal spiritual role.

[embedding-shape]

It's not 100% clear by this article what was said, and I don't have access to the source article either. But I think the parts, even if they don't mention verbatim what happened, makes it a pretty clear threat:

> America, Colby and his colleagues told the cardinal, has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.

> As tempers rose, an unidentified U.S. official reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.

I'm also not 100% sure what they mean with "invoked the Avignon Papacy", a bit like saying "Invoked the Second World War", it was an event/time period as far as I know, not something you "invoke" exactly. But even mentioning it makes it pretty clear what they're hinting at to be honest.

[nicwolff]

I think they meant "evoked", for which Merriam Webster has

    1: to call forth or up: such as
      a: to bring to mind or recollection
      b: to cite especially with approval or for support

[iguessthislldo]

So they kidnap him like they did with the president of Venezuela? I don't understand how they think this is going to play out well.

[fhdkweig]

I had a science teacher in high school 30 years ago who was convinced that the current pope was the anti-christ spoken of in Revelation. US Christianity is very anti-Catholic. That's why Trump can talk about setting up telephone hotlines to report anti-christian sentiment, yet his administration does stuff like this. If/when Trump dies in office, VD Vance won't be able to control MAGA because Vance is Catholic, and MAGA hates him for it.

[rawgabbit]

As a Catholic, I understood the reference to Avignon Papacy to mean the US will create a separate papacy, distinct from Leo and under the control of Trump.

[paduc]

I think that you are correct. I was looking for this in the comments.

At that period in history, the French kingdom (catholic) was at war with the Spanish kingdom (also catholic) and Italian kingdoms/duchies. A pope had immense political power because of the fervor of the people. If the pope excommunicated a king, he would lose a lot of power in his kingdom and all catholic countries would have a good reason to declare war. Hence, the strategical relocation of "a" pope in the city of Avignon, under French "protection".

I believe the threat is to "protect" a new pope in the US. Whether catholic (maybe other christian denominations) Americans would support it...

[IAmBroom]

To complement the next Dalai Lama to be chosen by Xi Jinping.

Putin already owns one, and King Charles III is one. C'mon, everybody is doing it!

[dsign]

Isn't "Babylonian captivity" coming from old history? [^1]. Though it's a most delightful read, I don't give much credence to the Bible as historical testimony . However, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a historian from Oxford and a self-declared atheist historiographer of Yahweh, asserts temple spoils were taken there at some point[^2].

[^1] https://biblehub.com/q/Why_were_temple_items_taken_to_Babylo...

[^2] Francesca Stavrakopoulou. "God, an anatomy".

[CGMthrowaway]

There's way too much misdirected emphasis on the pope and ecclesiastical hierarchy imo. I wouldn't think too hard about it. You can be catholic and not like the pope just the same as you can be french and not like the king. Or american and not like the president. There is only one divinity on earth today and that's the holy spirit (consubstantial with the father and son), indwelling and guiding humanity on many levels

[Galanwe]

> You can be catholic and not like the pope

You can be christian and not like the pope.

But to catholics, the pope is the terrestrial embodiment of the holy spirit, and as such considered infaillible. Not recognizing the pope as such is incompatible with catholicism.

Papacy is a core part of catholicism, it's not a "pick and choose buffet".

[sqircles]

> and as such considered infaillible

This is a common misconception. The pope is only considered as speaking infallibly by the Catholic Church when speaking ex cathedra on matter of faith and morals. This is very rare and is considered to only have happened twice in history.

[Galanwe]

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out, very interesting!

[fhdkweig]

> You can be catholic and not like the pope

I come from a Protestant background, so I view Catholicism as just Protestants with a pope. What does it mean to be catholic but without a pope?

[sqircles]

You cannot be in full communion with the Catholic Church and not submit to the papal office.

Catholics owe the Pope religious submission of intellect and will to his authentic magisterium (teaching authority) on faith and morals, even when not speaking infallibly (Lumen Gentium 25; CCC 892; Code of Canon Law, can. 752). This is a respectful adherence and presumption in favor of what he teaches officially as Pope. This does not extend to his personal opinions, private theological views, prudential judgments (e.g., on politics, economics, or administrative decisions), or liking him as a person or agreeing with everything he says or does in a non-magisterial capacity.

[fabianholzer]

Probably to be a high-church Anglican/episcopalian?

[lostlogin]

Vance can take this one.

[sqircles]

I appreciate your comment and I understand. My struggles are not about whether or not I like the man who is in the seat.

[CGMthrowaway]

Another example for you.. Rather than donate money to the church, I donate my time and talent instead. In that way it is focused 100% on my local parish. Another one, I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it. There are loads of times where the "leadership" of the church leaves something to be desired, yet the progress of gods kindgom marches on. If christianity were to "devolve" in the future to house churches again, that would not stop it. Yet, the fact that it is not a "house church" system today is not a reason not to practice your faith

[sqircles]

> I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it.

The Church certainly disagrees with you, teaching that the visible Church is the ordinary means of salvation and full communion with Christ. (see the Precepts, CCC ~846–848)

[CGMthrowaway]

The Church can do that, assuming you are interpreting it correctly, which is questionable. I dont know how someone online can tell me definitely whether I will be saved or not though. And Matthew 18:20

[sqircles]

I'm not speaking to your personal salvation. I'm speaking in context of what the Catholic Church teaches is required for salvation, as that is the context of this comment thread - take that as you will. The Church (big C, as in the Catholic Church) teaches "infallibly," so if you are a Catholic it really is not up for debate, that there is no salvation outside of Christ AND the Church. That includes the 5 precepts of the Catholic Church - or minimum "laws" you must follow as a Catholic, 4 of which are dependent on the Church itself: attending Mass on Sundays/Holy Days, annual confession at a minimum, receiving Eucharist during Easter, observe fasting/abstaining days, and providing for the Church's needs. Therefore, quite simply, if a Catholic makes the statement "I develop my relationship with god in a way that is helped by worship through the church, but is not dependent on it" that is a direct conflict [0].

I'm not even sure from what position you are arguing from, but both of those statements (relationship with God supported by a visible church rather than requiring it, and Matthew 18:20) are fundamental arguments for Protestantism.

[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-re...

[habinero]

> you can be french and not like the king

Famously the French got rid of theirs, several times. Maybe not the best example.

[the_af]

Let me try again:

You can be French and not like cheese.

Wait, no, it doesn't work.

[Arodex]

>You can be catholic and not like the pope

Quick, read the Nicene creed aloud right now...

[CGMthrowaway]

Sure

[lostlogin]

> can be french and not like the king.

I don’t think you can? You know how that worked out? It’s the OG ‘No Kings’.

[Calazon]

If you like Catholicism but struggle with the papacy, have you considered Eastern Orthodoxy?

[sqircles]

Within Eastern Orthodoxy, I struggle with 2+ hour long services. :)

Jokes aside, there are only a couple in my area and they are ripe with tribalism and hard to approach. Appreciate your recommendation, though.