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

Poll

Robert Francis Prevost elected by the putative College of Cardinals in conclave on 8 May 2025 and assuming the regnal name of Leon XIV is:

The Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church, therefore a valid, licit, and formal Pope.
6 (13.6%)
A material Pope and merely an administrator of the Roman See, having obtained valid election but lacking one or elements necessary for him to obtain the Petrine Office Himself.
13 (29.5%)
A usurper and pretender claimant of the Papal Office whilst another valid and truly hold the Petrine Office, being therefore an Antipope.
0 (0%)
A usurper, heretical, and criminal claimant of the Papal Office, being therefore a False Pope.
16 (36.4%)
I am not sure.
9 (20.5%)

Total Members Voted: 44

Voting closed: May 12, 2025, 06:39:21 AM

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8

Author Topic: The Question of the Papal Claimant  (Read 5423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
The Question of the Papal Claimant
« on: May 09, 2025, 06:39:21 AM »
Now that the world has had its frolic in Piazza San Pietro, where do you stand in regard to the claimed Papacy of the US-born man from Peru who is presented as Pope Leo XIV?

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2025, 07:56:17 AM »
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere.  I'm not sure I agree with that definition.  I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope.  But that's just semantics.

I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle.  I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2025, 08:23:05 AM »
He's an american, so I trust him 100%.  He's the realest pope since St Peter.  His name speaks volumes; what else do we need to know?  Canonize him immediately!  (sarcasm alert)
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2025, 08:26:16 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on May 09, 2025, 07:56:17 AM
Clearly just another AntiPope, except that you define that term as requiring there being a real Pope somewhere.  I'm not sure I agree with that definition.  I think that it's meant to exclude various crackpots with 3 or 4 followers, since that would water down the term, but I believe that anyone with significant following could qualify as an AntiPope.  But that's just semantics.

I don't believe he's a material Pope either ... despite being a sedeprivationist in principle.  I believe that the material continuity has long been servered, though I know you hold that it was severed during Bergoglio's term.
Wait why do you believe the material continuity was severed again?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2025, 08:43:52 AM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 09, 2025, 08:26:16 AM
Wait why do you believe the material continuity was severed again?

So for me it's based on the Siri Theory.  I agree in principle with the formal/material distinction (makes perfect sense) ... but just believe that Siri was the rightfully-elected Pope, and that he was forced to step down under duress, which would make his resignation invalid, and thus legitimate election to the office (the material aspect) would have been impeded by Siri's rightful posession of it, until his death in 1989.  By that time, there were no legitimate electors left form the Pius XII era, or if there was 1 or 2 (I doubt it due to the age limit started I think by Montini ... perhaps for this reason?), who knows who they voted for.

Others believe that Bergoglio's election was (materially) invalid due to the collusion (St. Gallen mafia) or alternatively because of his non-resignation (munus vs. ministerium).

Interestingly, just the other day on Taylor Marshall's show / video, someone chatted in (the SuperChat where you pay to get your question answered) about whether any popes in recent memory had been elected but turned down the election.  Marshall casually mentioned that Siri turned it down in 1958.  Oh, really, Taylor?  So, how do you know this?  Siri never said one way or the other, since he said he was bound by the oath.  Consequently, that was clearly an attempt by Marshall to contradict (falsely, with no information) the Siri Theory.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
« previous next »