Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?

Become an R&R Traditionalist
12 (35.3%)
Become an Indult Traditionalist
6 (17.6%)
Become an NO Cath Conservative
9 (26.5%)
Become a very liberal Catholic
1 (2.9%)
Cease to practice Catholicism
6 (17.6%)

Total Members Voted: 28

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 54

Author Topic: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?  (Read 26891 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #180 on: July 16, 2020, 05:34:33 PM »
Quote from: roscoe on July 16, 2020, 05:10:26 PM
Pls show source claiming any of GWS popes are anti-popes... :confused: w/ POSSIBLE exception of Pedro...
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865
ANTIPOPES OF THE WESTERN SCHISM:

CLEMENT VII (Robert of Geneva): September 20 (October 31), 1378 to September 16, 1394.
BENEDICT XII (Pedro de Luna): Aragon; September 28 (October 11), 1394 to May 23, 1423.
ALEXANDER V (Pietro Filargo): Crete; June 26 (July 7), 1409 to May 3, 1410.
JOHN XXIII (Baldassare Cossa): Naples; May 17 (25), 1410 to May 29, 1415.
FELIX V (Amadeus, Duke of Savoy): Savoy; November 5, 1439 (July 24, 1440) to April 7, 1449; d. 1451.
Logged

Offline roscoe

Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #181 on: July 16, 2020, 05:48:18 PM »
1 way to show that the above is inaccurate is that Pope Alex VI give legitimacy to Alex V by taking the name of Alex VI instead of Alex V...

See also Attwater's Catholic Dictionary which says on pg 26 that the popes of GWS are not anti-popes because of the 'uncertainty of their status..' :popcorn:
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #182 on: July 16, 2020, 06:01:32 PM »
Quote from: roscoe on July 16, 2020, 05:48:18 PM
1 way to show that the above is inaccurate is that Pope Alex VI give legitimacy to Alex V by taking the name of Alex VI instead of Alex V...

See also Attwater's Catholic Dictionary which says on pg 26 that the popes of GWS are not anti-popes because of the 'uncertainty of their status..' :popcorn:
Given your popcorn icon, are you looking for a fight roscoe?  I know I'm not.
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #183 on: July 16, 2020, 06:25:49 PM »
Quote from: 2Vermont on July 16, 2020, 05:34:33 PM
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31865
ANTIPOPES OF THE WESTERN SCHISM:

CLEMENT VII (Robert of Geneva): September 20 (October 31), 1378 to September 16, 1394.
BENEDICT XII (Pedro de Luna): Aragon; September 28 (October 11), 1394 to May 23, 1423.
ALEXANDER V (Pietro Filargo): Crete; June 26 (July 7), 1409 to May 3, 1410.
JOHN XXIII (Baldassare Cossa): Naples; May 17 (25), 1410 to May 29, 1415.
FELIX V (Amadeus, Duke of Savoy): Savoy; November 5, 1439 (July 24, 1440) to April 7, 1449; d. 1451.
The Church has flip-flopped on the issue in the past. The Pisan popes were widely regarded as valid popes until the 20th century and, as Roscoe pointed out, this is reflected in papal regnal numbering too. For example, Pope Alexander VI clearly recognised Alexander V as his legitimate predecessor.

It was only with Pope John XXIII(the 20th century one) that the official line on this appeared to change, as he ignored the 15th century John XXIII in his regnal numbering, saying there were only 22 certainly valid Johns before him(so still not saying the other John XXIII was certainly invalid).
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Sedevacantists:if you were convinced sede-ism was wrong, what would you do next?
« Reply #184 on: July 16, 2020, 06:31:03 PM »
Quote from: forlorn on July 16, 2020, 06:25:49 PM
The Church has flip-flopped on the issue in the past. The Pisan popes were widely regarded as valid popes until the 20th century and, as Roscoe pointed out, this is reflected in papal regnal numbering too. For example, Pope Alexander VI clearly recognised Alexander V as his legitimate predecessor.

It was only with Pope John XXIII(the 20th century one) that the official line on this appeared to change, as he ignored the 15th century John XXIII in his regnal numbering, saying there were only 22 certainly valid Johns before him(so still not saying the other John XXIII was certainly invalid).
Yes, according to the Annuncio Pontificio (the annual directory of the Holy See), there were 8 anti-popes of the Catholic Church during the time of the GWS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes

If we don't want to include the changes made under John XXIII of Vatican II notoriety (and exclude the Pisan popes), it appears we're still looking at 6 anti-popes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 54
« previous next »