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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?  (Read 1304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3874
  • Reputation: +1993/-1112
  • Gender: Female
Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2018, 10:52:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on May 01, 2018, 10:45:33 AM
    The circuмstances were entirely different. This was the time of the Great Western Schism when three men had been elected pope by the Cardinals, and all three men claimed to be pope. It was nearly impossible to know for sure who the true pope was.  This was a case in which all three popes were truly "doubtful".  
    In our day there is one person elected by the Cardinals who claims to be pope, and unfortunately it is Francis.  Ratzinger quit, his resignation was accepted by the Church, and he no longer claims to be the pope.  There is only one person who claims to be Pope.  There is no comparison between our time and the Great Western Schism.
      
    The circuмstances are different, but there are still reasons to question the papacy.  We are seeing popes who appear to be harming the Church with their teaching.  We need some way to explain such a thing happening.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41899
    • Reputation: +23942/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #16 on: May 01, 2018, 10:53:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on May 01, 2018, 10:45:33 AM
    There is only one person who claims to be Pope.  There is no comparison between our time and the Great Western Schism.
      

    :facepalm:

    Of course there's a comparison.  There's a principle here of what happens to a Catholic who mistakenly adheres to an Antipope.  Principle is the same whether there is one or there are three.
    Logged

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #17 on: May 01, 2018, 11:17:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 01, 2018, 10:53:22 AM
    :facepalm:

    Of course there's a comparison.  There's a principle here of what happens to a Catholic who mistakenly adheres to an Antipope.  Principle is the same whether there is one or there are three.
    You must have missed the point.  The difference is that during the Great Western Schism the axiom Papa dubius papa nullus applied, objectively, to all three claimants.   Mistakenly adhering to the wrong pope at that time is entirely different than not adhering to a single pope whose election was accepted by the entire Church, and therefore whose legitimacy is not objectively in doubt.  
    Logged
    Never trust; always verify.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4622/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #18 on: May 01, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on May 01, 2018, 11:17:33 AM
    You must have missed the point.  The difference is that during the Great Western Schism the axiom Papa dubius papa nullus applied, objectively, to all three claimants.   Mistakenly adhering to the wrong pope at that time is entirely different than not adhering to a single pope whose election was accepted by the entire Church, and therefore whose legitimacy is not objectively in doubt.  
    The problem is that his legitimacy is objectively in doubt...at least for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #19 on: May 01, 2018, 01:39:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RomanTheo on May 01, 2018, 11:17:33 AM
    You must have missed the point.  The difference is that during the Great Western Schism the axiom Papa dubius papa nullus applied, objectively, to all three claimants.   Mistakenly adhering to the wrong pope at that time is entirely different than not adhering to a single pope whose election was accepted by the entire Church, and therefore whose legitimacy is not objectively in doubt.  
    There were antipopes who were "accepted by the entire Church" in the same sense as one would use it of Francis. The relative numbers of bishops, priests and laity on the opposing side makes no logical difference to that sense.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #20 on: May 01, 2018, 02:52:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Theosist on May 01, 2018, 01:39:25 PM
    There were antipopes who were "accepted by the entire Church" in the same sense as one would use it of Francis. The relative numbers of bishops, priests and laity on the opposing side makes no logical difference to that sense.
    Which antipopes were these? I know of antipopes who had entire nations following them, but Francis easily has 99% of Catholic Bishops following him. I don't know of any antipope who could boast such percentages.
    Logged

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What was the Church's stance on people who followed antipopes in the past?
    « Reply #21 on: May 03, 2018, 10:49:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on May 01, 2018, 02:52:25 PM
    Which antipopes were these? I know of antipopes who had entire nations following them, but Francis easily has 99% of Catholic Bishops following him. I don't know of any antipope who could boast such percentages.
    I said IN THE SAME SENSE of Francis being recognised by "the whole Church", namely being recognised by the majority of Catholic laity, priests and bishops, and recognised by ALL of the cardinals (e.g., Clement VII). I also explicitly stated that RELATIVE PERCENTAGES make NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE to that sense. Obviously neither the Antipopes nor Francis can claim recognistion by the "whole Church" unless ones defines in the latter case as being outside of the Church everyone and anyone who does not recognise him, in which case it's just a vacuous tautology.
    At what point does a percentage which is not 100% become or cease to be "the whole Church"? That is not a well-defined sense of the term and contains an implicit heap paradox, i.e., it's an exercise in absurdity.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »