Author Topic: Famous theologians or saints who held that there were no valid Popes (Read 2154 times)

Geremia · « **on:** November 08, 2015, 05:52:07 PM »

St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer, for example, disagreed about who the valid Pope was during the Great Western Schism.

Are there famous theologians or even saints who lived during the Great Western Schism and who considered none of the papal claimants valid popes?

(cf. the related Christianity StackExchange question)

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2015, 05:57:22 PM »

I am not aware of anyone.... :detective: :detective:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:15:26 PM »

Actually there were sedevacantists. Remember, they elected a third 'pope' (second antipope). Not only were they sedevacantists, but they became conclavists and schismatics. (The cardinals)

Geremia · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:16:21 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

I am not aware of anyone.... :detective: :detective:

Yes, Ludwig Pastor doesn't appear to mention such a thing in his The History of the Popes: From the Close of the Middle Ages (vol. 1), where he treats the Great Western Schism. Thus, sedevacantism doesn't seem to have any precedent.

Geremia · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Actually there were sedevacantists. Remember, they elected a third 'pope' (second antipope). Not only were they sedevacantists, but they became conclavists and schismatics. (The cardinals)

interesting observation
Thus, it would seem sedevacantism→conclavism→full-fledged schism.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:22:18 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Actually there were sedevacantists. Remember, they elected a third 'pope' (second antipope). Not only were they sedevacantists, but they became conclavists and schismatics. (The cardinals)

Can you name someone who refers to 'sedevacantists' during GWS???

None of the Popes( whether FR or IT) during GWS are anti-popes. Pls provide source...

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:32:52 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Actually there were sedevacantists. Remember, they elected a third 'pope' (second antipope). Not only were they sedevacantists, but they became conclavists and schismatics. (The cardinals)

Actually there is no mention of sedevacantists in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Western Schism. In fact, the CE is very clear that none of the groups were true schismatics during this time.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: roscoe
I am not aware of anyone.... :detective: :detective:
Yes, Ludwig Pastor doesn't appear to mention such a thing in his The History of the Popes: From the Close of the Middle Ages (vol. 1), where he treats the Great Western Schism. Thus, sedevacantism doesn't seem to have any precedent.

There was no precedent for 3 papal claimants before the GWS either.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:37:42 PM »

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope. To argue that they didn't believe that the See was vacant is possible, but I don't see it as likely. They denied the legitimacy of a validly elected pope. They didn't say we refuse to submit to any successor of St. Peter like the Orthodox do. We can't know their thoughts, but I'll be willing to bet that the majority who elected an anti-pope truly believed that the valid pope was no longer pope. If they weren't schismatics, then they truly believed there was no pope for them to submit to.

I'm not sedevacantist. But I don't believe that sedevacantists in general are schismatic. Conclavism seems to be the real danger with sedevacantism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2015, 06:44:11 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope. To argue that they didn't believe that the See was vacant is possible, but I don't see it as likely. They denied the legitimacy of a validly elected pope. They didn't say we refuse to submit to any successor of St. Peter like the Orthodox do. We can't know their thoughts, but I'll be willing to bet that the majority who elected an anti-pope truly believed that the valid pope was no longer pope. If they weren't schismatics, then they truly believed there was no pope for them to submit to.

Like I said, the CE is VERY clear that there was no schismatic intention on the part of any of these groups. Go ahead, call them "sedevacantists", but they weren't considered schismatic.

Edit: Huh, which now makes me think there was precedence to a certain degree.

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope.

Pls provide a source claiming that either Fr or It faction of GWS Popes are anti-popes. :detective: :detective:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:09:31 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope. To argue that they didn't believe that the See was vacant is possible, but I don't see it as likely. They denied the legitimacy of a validly elected pope. They didn't say we refuse to submit to any successor of St. Peter like the Orthodox do. We can't know their thoughts, but I'll be willing to bet that the majority who elected an anti-pope truly believed that the valid pope was no longer pope. If they weren't schismatics, then they truly believed there was no pope for them to submit to.

Like I said, the CE is VERY clear that there was no schismatic intention on the part of any of these groups. Go ahead, call them "sedevacantists", but they weren't considered schismatic.

Edit: Huh, which now makes me think there was precedence to a certain degree.

Yeah, I don't see them as schismatics if they are intending to stay true to the papacy. They just didn't believe there was a pope to submit to.

Interesting.

Nevertheless, their actions led to a conclave and an anti-pope.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:15:30 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope.

Pls provide a source claiming that either Fr or It faction of GWS Popes are anti-popes. :detective: :detective:

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Whatever you will label the situation, as a practicing Catholic it would be heresy to state that it was possible that all three at the same moment were valid Roman Pontiffs.

Gregory I · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:42:18 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is like saying there is no mention of the word 'purgatory' in the Bible.

The fact is that a group of cardinals got together when there already was a valid pope, they acted as if he was not valid and elected an anti-pope.

Pls provide a source claiming that either Fr or It faction of GWS Popes are anti-popes. :detective: :detective:

The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Pedro de Luna as an Antipope, probably because he kept up his claim after the council of Constance.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09431c.htm

Also, Robert of Geneva who became Clement VII is labeled an Antipope:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13096c.htm

Also John XXIII is called an Antipope of the Pisan party:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08434a.htm

Look, sources!

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2015, 07:48:28 PM »

If anyone is hung up on semantics it is Centro. A claim has been made above that a 'group of Cardinals' ( I am assuming you are referring to the French) got together and 'elected an anti-pope'.

Pls provide a source( besides Fr Radecki-- who is wrong) claiming that any of the papal claimants during GWS are considered anti-popes.

:detective: