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

Author Topic: The Question of the Papal Claimant  (Read 5457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2025, 10:17:29 AM »
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.
The material election of the pope is merely saying that
a) the duly appointed Cardinals
b) held a valid election (per election rules in place)
c) and a new pope was elected, accepted and rules the vatican govt.

Whether or not every Cardinal is a raging heretic, who has been spiritually nullified by canon law, or by Divine Law, is irrelevant.  God gave to St Peter the power to 'bind and loose'.  Part of the papacy is material/human and part is spiritual.

The Siri thesis proves the point that a material pope is possible.  Thus, even if every cardinal was a formal heretic (and I don't think ALL of them are), you can still have the valid election of a material/governing pope.  He would simply have 0 spiritual authority and be under imposition of a vast array of canon law excommunications (same as the Cardinals).

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2025, 10:17:38 AM »
Seems hypothetical (to underscore a definition of an Antipope ... and no one has answered in that manner yet).

I can see a hypothesis about a "hidden pope", whether those alleged "secret Cardinals" some claim (with zero evidence) that Siri created ... or for some altogether different line.
.

Yes, certainly hypothetical, but I don't know of anyone (and certainly not any known group of any size) that rejects the Vatican 2 antipopes on the basis of sedevacantist principles, who actually thinks there is a real pope in hiding or something.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2025, 10:23:19 AM »
Ann Barnhardt is reporting that Prevost is 1/4 black (of Creole heritage.)
Of course this doesn't matter unless as a liberal he uses it as some sort of leverage.

Speaking of Barnhardt ...
Quote
White smoke. Pray, and no matter what happens, trust in The Lord.

The first valid conclave since my conversion to Catholicism in ARSH 2007 is over.

Pray for the gift of Counsel.

Trust in the Divine Providence which is always perfect.

No matter what, today is a day that The Lord has made. Rejoice and be glad in it.

Tomorrow we Catholics will still be Catholic. The Mass will still be the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, and Our Lord will be reposed in the Tabernacle.


I'm very tired of her obnoxious/arrogant "ARSH" (as if the Anno Domino that everyone in the Church has used forever wasn't good enough for her ... narcissism, anyone?) ...

but apart from that, I'd love to find out how she thinks this was a "valid conclave", since Bergs (whom she considers an Antipope, without her being a sedeprivationist or even knowing what that term means) appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2025, 10:38:55 AM »
but apart from that, I'd love to find out how she thinks this was a "valid conclave", since Bergs (whom she considers an Antipope, without her being a sedeprivationist or even knowing what that term means) appointed 108 of the 133 Cardinals who voted.
.

Ah, there it is. So she says the conclave was valid, but the sede vacante clock is still running on the sidebar.

Re: The Question of the Papal Claimant
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2025, 10:47:53 AM »