Indistinguishable from anti-popes?

What does this mean?


~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]The antipopes I am afraid actually prove more than they disprove (which is nothing) with regard to the papacy. First of all, there are around 30 of them. There are on rare occassion anti-bishops or anti-patriarchs in other dioceses but the number of anti-popes in the diocese of Rome and the manner in which they attempted to excercise authority over the whole Church is evidence that this authority was a part of the Bishop of Rome. Further, the earliest anti-popes showed up before Constantine walked the earth. Hippolatus and Novatian were the first in the mid 250's. That doesn't help the theory much that constantine started the Catholic Church.

But I think the quote you are talking about is not talking about the times when all 30 anti-popes were creating a controversy over who actually was the Pope. I can recall only one or two instances where there was much question about who was actually pope, though there are a couple of times when it may have been a bit gray. At one time as I recall there were 3 who claimed to be pope. The Church as I recall threw them all out and elected a new one. Thus if you go on from where you left off,

"In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied."

i.e. for instance, at the time of Novatian and Hippolatus who declared themselves Pope, it is quite clear that they were not. Thus the Church did not elect a new one as your quote suggests.
The Church does not depend on their always being a Pope. I believe there is one 3-4 year gap. As long as there are bishops, the Church is still there and has the capability to elect a new pope. Most gaps are a year or less and reflect the time it took to convene the bishops to elect a new pope.

Hope that helps.

[ June 09, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

The Catholic Church calls this "the GREAT SCHISM". These 3 popes sliced up the Catholic church into "armies". And you had "Catholics killing Catholics" during those years ALL under the banner of their own pope and all infallibly promised a ticket to heaven by "The Pope Himself" - if they died in battle.

The "interesting thing" is that ALL three Popes were elected by the SAME board of Cardinals.

All were denounced as "AntiChrist" by rival Popes and by the Cardinals.

(Luther simply joined in that long standing tradition).

The big question at that time was "How could you as a Catholic - possibly know for sure you were killing the right Catholics??". How could you know "your pope" was the right one.

And then when ALL THREE Papal LINES (that's right ALL three Popes EACH had SUCCESSORS) were finally defrocked - OH the dissappointment of the various followers reflecting on how they had killed fellow Catholics in the name of a "defrocked line".

Basically the Emperor set up his own council as SUPERIOR to ALL reigning Papal lines and demanded that they all resign.

Painful process indeed. But it gave the "protesting" and the "reforming" Catholics time to promote true reform without being killed (at least for a short time).

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'll take an objective history of this event, Bob. Please point me to where I might find one. I don't trust your personal paraphrases anymore, no offense.

As to the original question:

If there is no discernable pope, the Church does not cease to be. When there is no Pope, no doctrines on faith or morals are taught or extrapolated upon except that which is already defined. (i.e., you don't have any infallible statements coming out during these times). Further, none of the times when there were rival antipopes was new/false doctrine ever taught. While the men themselves were unpure, the Church remained untarnished. History shows thus. While evil men may ascend to the papacy, nothing impure will be taught from the Chair of Peter, by virtue of the office established by God and protected by the Holy Spirit, not by the men themselves.

God bless,

Grant

 

No, those were not the three we are talking about. The time in question was from 1378 to 1415. They are Gregory XI, Urban VI, Alexander V and then John XXIII.

The three you have listed were actual Popes who had short terms. Sylvester III is the only one of the three listed in the anti-pope list. There is very little info on him. Gregory VI appears definitely to be a legitimately elected Pope, though he was appointed by Benedict IX who was appointed and apparently was quite young (21). There is no indication that he was an anti-pope, though certainly of dubious character. The List of Popes in Catholic Encyclopedia was put together by the secular media to my understanding with the help of the Church. It is not an infallible list but a historical study looking back to determine who was pope. That it is not clear today does not mean it was not then.

[ June 10, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

"What is the purpose of the councils and how are anti-popes indistinguishable from the real thing in a body that professes to have an unbroken line of apostolic succession?"

First of all, that they are indistinguishable today does not mean they were not at that time. We cannot make that assumption. Secondly you are relating the unbroken line of apostolic succession to there being an unbroken line of popes. First you have not show this to be true because of the anti-popes and secondly the unbroken line of succession is not Catholic doctrine that I know of though I have seen it on a couple of Catholic websites. It would require that immediately when a Pope died someone would take his place. This was physically impossible much of the time when the cardinals had to get together and vote one in. Rather the doctrine of unbroken apostolic succession depends on there always being bishops in the world to perpetuate the Church. Apostolic succession is through all of the Apostles through all of the bishops. By neccessity they elect a pope as soon as possible. But like I said there was a 3-4 year gap at one point.

"but even catholics admit that there were many evil men who held that title without opposition. I heard one Catholic Apologist say there will be many popes in hell. WOW! "

My understanding and study says that there were only a few. Perhaps 6 out of the 300 that were actually evil people. Not every Catholic apologist is an infallible interpruter of history.

"History does not live up to the churches claims of infallibility and an unbroken line of Apostolic succession."

Your concept of unbroken line of Apostolic succession is flawed as I have pointed out above. What do you think infallibility means? It is not the same as impecability. I think if you will take an honest look through history you will find that the bad popes were too busy being corrupt to infect the Church with doctine that was contradictory to traditional Church teaching. Find me a case where they did.

Blessings

 

"I wasn't aware the three terms could over-lap so that all three were ruling at once."

If you read the stories about Gregory and Benedict on there Catholic Encyclopedia articles (which you apparently have not) you get more of the details that you plainly are missing. I have not said that there was not a controversy. Benedict came to be the Pope by somewhat questionable means (he was appointed by I believe it was the French King. He allegedly decided to marry and thus stepped down, appointing Gregory as Pope who was confirmed by some bishops. Then Benedict apparently decided that he didn't want to get married or something like that and decided he wanted his chair back. This is the cause of the controversy that was settled by your quote.

I have not found details of how sylvester fits in to all of this. But Benedict it seems was not Pope while Gregory was. He was likely Pope, though a bad one, for a short time before Gregory before he gave over his office. Then he was likely an anti-pope for a while when Gregory was Pope. Granted the details are difficult to sort out but once again it does not nulify apostolic succession to have the Chair of Peter in question or unoccupied for a time because Apostolic succession is not link just to the Bishop of Rome.

 

Lorelei,


1) Is your purpose here to a) gain understanding, b) Out of love for mankind convince a wayward soul on his way to hell or c) to display your hatred for the Catholic Church and the Pope.

c) ___ c) ___ c) ___

Blessings to you.

 

Further clarification before I retire from this thread.

"However, when the bishops of the synod had convinced him that the act by which he had become supreme pontiff was in itself simoniacal, and had called upon him to resign, Gregory, seeing that little choice was left him, of his own accord laid down his office. "

From the article of Pope Gregory VI who doesn't sound like too bad a Pope, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791a.htm.

Seems that he choose to step down to unify the Church once again. Benedict was Pope for a short time then gave it up to Gregory and tried to reclaim it. He resigned on his own. Gregory was Pope for a time then resigned for the good of the Church. Sylvester was a usurper and had no claim to the chair at any time.

Blessings

 

I'm so thankful that I am a Chistian by the ONE
who knows me and not by affiliation.

 

"If there are no clear documents about Sylvester, then how can one be sure?"

Read the article on Gregory VI. Your holding me to something I said before I read that article.

"of his own accord "

Does not mean forced.

 

This assumption probably stems from the fact that to a Catholic, to question it's authority is equal with harboring hatred to that same authority.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]No, it just goes back to the post at 2:24 PM in which after trying to have a meaningful dialogue with you in which you basically ignored everything I said, there was a whole series of the usual blind and corrupt and evil that showed that I was wasting my time and effort trying to have a discussion with you. All popes are evil child molesters and all Catholic faithful are zombies who live in fear of priests, biships and the pope and in total blindness is the only answer you will accept. It leaves you feeling nice and comfy about where you are at. I think that post pretty well spoke to answer c.

Good day dear.

[ June 10, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

If what you claim is apostolic succession through all of the apostles through all the bishops, then it follows that Peter has no exclusive claim to the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but all the apostles. Otherwise based on your theory, the whole scenario will be;

I think there is inconsistency with these.

[edited to correct page formatting]

[ June 11, 2003, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]