CathInfo.com

SJB said:

Yes, I see no anti-pope(s) today, just a man who appears to be sitting on the throne of Peter.

Gregory I said:

No, no, my point wasn't that the "Popes" today are anti-popes per se

I guess my question was, How you would answer the objection that no Catholic ought to postulate the possibility of an antipope unless there are at least two visible and credible claimants to the Papal office? Maybe that position is what the virtue of prudence calls for.

Likewise, it can be said that those who attempted to depose Pope Liberius, even if they acted in good faith, were imprudent in doing so, and so far from advancing the cause of the Faith and the Church, actively hindered it, not to mention affronted the dignity of the Vicar of Christ.

As for the Saints, again, well, I think this works against sedevacantists who treat it as an anathematizing issue. For my part, no, I don't think St.Ferrer was schismatic at all. Neither side was in schism.

I guess my real disagreement with sedevacantism as it is espoused today is, Where do you draw the line? If it is right and just to reject upto 5 Papal claimants, then why not 10? Is there any limit to which you can go back, then? And besides, this then becomes a sort of justification for every schismatic sect in the past, whether Syrians, Greeks or others, who will just claim that all Popes and their successors since then have lost their office by being heretics. How would sedevacantists respond to that?

Quote from: roscoe

Show some evidence from some Catholic Encyclopedia or other reference that Benedict XIII is an anti-pope. The Catholic Almanac has already been cited.

I have used von Pastor and Atwater. If U don't like it take it up with them.

St Ferrer did not recognise an anti-pope. The Fr. Popes of GWS are NOT anti-popes.

SESSION 37 - 26 July 1417

[Definitive sentence whereby Peter de Luna, pope Benedict XIII, is divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.]

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm

"May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitu- tions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases."

At LEAST after Constance, Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna) continued to behave as Pope and was deposed and declared schismatic and heretical. At this time at LEAST he was an anti-pope against Pope Martin until his death in 1423.

So to say he was not an antipope is ridiculous and a-historical. He rejected the council of constance and was deposed by it and still continued to maintain himself Pope. That is the definition of an antipope.

Thanks for posting this-- I need time to study the docuмent. All I can tell U is that von Pastor and Atwater agree that the Clementine popes are not anti-popes. To me this makes sense as there was no heresy, homos or blasphemers among them. Pope John recanted his heresy and that was the only case.

 Can a source from one of the various Catholic Encyclopedia's( on line or otherwise) be cited stating that any of the Fr popes are indeed anti-popes?

Since Greg is such a sleuth, maybe he could find English copies of the tobacco Bulls of Popes Urban, Innocent & Benedict? I for one would very much like to read them.

I was not aware of the post Council behavior of de Luna, so U may be right there but what about a ref from a Catholic Encyclopedia? because I have not seen one.

The docuмent does not actually say that de Luna is an anti-pope. It says he divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.  












?