Author Topic: Which saints have backed anti-popes? (Read 1808 times)

henry · « **on:** July 15, 2010, 07:54:08 AM »

I think I read that St. Teresa of Avila (I could be wrong) backed an anti-pope. This is interesting to me, because it shows how far you can be off the right track and still remain a good Catholic.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:02:44 AM »

Well that encouraging! Maybe now if Raoul ever does become a CMRI priest I won't fear going to confession to him.

henry · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:10:10 AM »

I'm almost positive I read about this somewhere, but my Googling can't find anything at the moment.

Trinity · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:12:29 AM »

Good thread, henry. I've been thinking of this the last few days. Even the saints didn't have everything right. I do believe it boils down to keeping the commandments and growing in virtue.

Laurentius · « **Reply #4 on:** July 15, 2010, 08:14:24 AM »

St. Vincent Ferrer for awhile backed Pedro de Luna i.e antipope Benedict XIII.

henry · « **Reply #5 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:04:40 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

Good thread, henry. I've been thinking of this the last few days. Even the saints didn't have everything right. I do believe it boils down to keeping the commandments and growing in virtue.

It gives me a little hope to know this. Do you know of any saints who supported anti-popes?

henry · « **Reply #6 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Laurentius

St. Vincent Ferrer for awhile backed Pedro de Luna i.e antipope Benedict XIII.

Funny, I read a biography of St. Vincent Ferrer by Fr. Pradel that I got from TAN a long time ago and it slipped my mind.

Quote

Peter de Luna, a stubborn and ambitious cardinal, made Vincent part of his baggage, so to speak; because from 1390 on, Vincent preached wherever Peter de Luna happened to be, including the court of Avignon, where Vincent enjoyed the advantage of being confessor to the pope, when Peter de Luna became the antipope Benedict XIII in 1394.

Two evils cried out for remedy in Saint Vincent's day: the moral laxity left by the great plague, and the scandal of the papal schism. In regard to the first, he preached tirelessly against the evils of the time. That he espoused the cause of the wrong man in the papal disagreement is no argument against Vincent's sanctity; at the time, and in the midst of such confusion, it was almost impossible to tell who was right and who was wrong. The memorable thing is that he labored, with all the strength he could muster, to bring order out of chaos. Eventually, Vincent came to believe that his friend's claims were false and urged de Luna to reconcile himself to Urban VI.

He acted as confessor to Queen Yolanda of Aragon from 1391 to 1395. He was accused to the Inquisition of heresy because he taught that Judas had performed penance, but the charge was dismissed by the antipope Benedict XIII, who burned the Inquisition's dossier on Vincent and made him his confessor.

Benedict offered Vincent a bishopric, but refused it. Distressed by the great schism and by Benedict's unyielding position, he advised him to confer with his Roman rival. Benedict refused. Reluctantly, Vincent was obliged to abandon de Luna in 1398. The strain of this conflict between friendship and truth caused Vincent to become dangerously ill in 1398. During his illness, he experienced a vision in which Christ and Saints Dominic and Francis instructed him to preach penance whenever and wherever he was needed, and he was miraculously cured.

>>>>>In 1414 the Council of Constance attempted the end the Great Schism, which had grown since 1409 with three claimants to the papal throne. The council deposed John XXIII, and demanded the resignation of Benedict XIII and Gregory XII so that a new election could be held. Gregory was willing, but Benedict was stubborn. Again, Vincent tried to persuade Benedict to abdicate. Again, he failed. But Vincent, who acted as a judge in the Compromise of Caspe to resolve the royal succession, influenced the election of Ferdinand as king of Castile. Still a friend of Benedict (Peter de Luna), King Ferdinand, basing his actions on Vincent's opinion on the issue, engineered Benedict's deposition in 1416, which ended the Western Schism.

http://svf-masbate.tripod.com/bio.htm

Trinity · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2010, 11:24:59 AM »

St. Catherine of Siena was mixed up in this, too, but on Urban's side. I remember being surprised that two such great saints should be at odds. I was to learn later that this was not uncommon.

henry · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2010, 01:57:03 AM »

I'm surprised no on else has chimed in. I thought there were dozens of saints who backed anti-popes.

roscoe · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2010, 02:02:11 AM »

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** July 17, 2010, 02:16:44 AM »

None of the saints ever supported any papal claimants that were unorthodox in belief or practice. The papal claimants that the saints supported were not heretics. There was confusion over who the real popes were, but there was no confusion or question about the Catholicity of the claimants.

Big difference from the current situation.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** July 17, 2010, 08:22:43 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

None of the saints ever supported any papal claimants that were unorthodox in belief or practice. The papal claimants that the saints supported were not heretics. There was confusion over who the real popes were, but there was no confusion or question about the Catholicity of the claimants.

Big difference from the current situation.

You are so right about that, there is a big difference between an anti-pope and NOpope. Anti popes were Catholic. We have had popes also that were personal sinners, but they too were Catholic; they did not lead the church into false ecuмenism and other errors.

What you see today is a man sitting in the Chair of Peter, who is leader of Truth (SSPX) and False (novus ordo), SSPX et al teach the Faith, which is the most important in salvation. At least with sedevacantism, CMRI also teach the Faith. I honestly can't say much about other sede groups, and have serious doubt about Dimond being within the Church, (my observation and opinion).

My own personal opinion again, is that God wants the SSPX right where He has them. Because there are still many people trapped within the novus ordo who are not ready to accept SV for some reason or another, they take baby steps, and find SSPX to be their SUPERNATURALlifesaver. SSPX I believe have an important roll to play, in that they can reach many people, who can not stand to hear the Chair is empty, they can offer these people Faith, and the sacraments.

Someday however, SSPX and SV will come together, because sooner of later, people in the world will realize, in God's good time AND GRACE, the truth of the situtation. That again is my opinion for what its worth. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying I have more grace because I am SV, I don't know why I can see this and others can't. Maybe God, just wants me where He put me for His own reasons.

Trinity · « **Reply #12 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:46:17 AM »

henry would have to say, of course, but I think the point of this thread is that even the saints couldn't discern a true pope from an anti pope. That ought to be of some consolation to us in this trying period.

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** July 17, 2010, 01:10:12 PM »

None if the GWS popes( of the Fr or It faction) has ever been formally declared as an anti-pope. There has never been any such thing as a saint who has backed an anti-pope that I am aware of.

It is possible for an anti-pope to be Catholic but not always. Those who have been declared anti-popes because of apostasy, heresy or blasphemy are certainly not Catholics( unless they repented) Those anti-popes whose election was fraudulent can still be considered Catholics in some cases.

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2010, 01:33:42 PM »

I think there was a discussion here recently concerning over-- generalisations. This is very relevant to the topic of anti-popes as each case is unique.