How can the Catholic church claim an unbroken line of popes

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul_barlow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paul_barlow

Guest
I Have been studying your history a bit and during the middle ages you had more than one pope how can you claim that the pope is then the direct succesor of peter. see below
Schism, Great, or Schism of the West, division in the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. There was no question of faith or practice involved; the schism was a matter of persons and politics. Shortly after Gregory XI had returned the papacy from Avignon to Rome, he died (Mar. 27, 1378). The Romans feared that the papal court might be returned to Avignon, and there was rioting, with the mob demanding a Roman, or at least an Italian, pope. On Apr. 8 the 16 cardinals present elected Urban VI. The new pope was soon acting very offensively to all in the church. The cardinals met at Agnani and on Aug. 2 declared Urban’s election null. At Fondi on Sept. 20 they elected Robert of Geneva pope as Clement VII. Urban VI remained in Rome, refusing to step down, and Clement VII fled to Avignon, where he reigned surrounded by the former Roman court. There were thus two lines of popes. The popes at Rome were Urban VI (1378-89), Boniface IX (1389-1404), Innocent VII (1404-6), and Gregory XII (1406-15). Those of the rival line at Avignon were Clement VII (1378-94) and Benedict XIII (1394-1417; see Luna, Pedro de). Schism within schism ensued. France withdrew from obedience to Benedict XIII and recognized no pope (1398-1403, 1408-9). Theologians of the Univ. of Paris, led by Pierre d’Ailly and John Gerson, were anxious to end the schism, and they developed the theory that popes are subject to general councils. The Council of Pisa (1409; see Pisa, Council of) was the result. This meeting declared that Gregory XII of the Roman (or Urbanist) line and Benedict XIII of the Avignon (or Clementine) line were not popes and elected another, Alexander V. He died soon after, but his energetic successor, Baldassarre Cossa (John XXIII, 1410-15), detached most of Europe from his rivals. In 1414 John reluctantly convened the Council of Constance (see Constance, Council of). Gregory XII resigned. John XXIII and Benedict XIII, who refused to resign, were declared deposed by the council. Martin V was elected, and the schism was at an end. The main effects of the schism were to delay needed reforms in the church and to give rise to the conciliar theory, which was revived at the Council of Basel (see Basel, Council of).
now this seems to be politics to me. an you explain how the pope was appointed by princes and removed by princes. i don’t see this in scripture. then tell me about the borgia pope and how come he had a son and a daughter. why if the pope can not make a mistake, explain why this was only introduced last century.
 
The successor of Peter was Urban VI and his successors. You can’t depose a pope, nor have two at once. That others claimed to be popes doesn’t mean they were.

The infallibility of the pope when solemnly teaching on faith and morals is just that. It doesn’t mean he becomes unable to sin. It’s like a man who is a jerk, but the best surgeon in the world - the fact that he’s a jerk has nothing to do with whether he’s a good surgeon.
 
Brad Haas:
The successor of Peter was Urban VI and his successors. You can’t depose a pope, nor have two at once. That others claimed to be popes doesn’t mean they were.

The infallibility of the pope when solemnly teaching on faith and morals is just that. It doesn’t mean he becomes unable to sin. It’s like a man who is a jerk, but the best surgeon in the world - the fact that he’s a jerk has nothing to do with whether he’s a good surgeon.
Click to expand...
Uh, the sucessor to Peter was linus and then Cletus.
 
paul barlow:
I Have been studying your history a bit and during the middle ages you had more than one pope how can you claim that the pope is then the direct succesor of peter.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember a similar situation in the LDS church after the passing of Joseph Smith. His son said he was the prophet, while Brigham Young also claimed he was the prophet. By the same logic of your argument, how can you claim you follow the true prophet of God???

Just because someone claims to be something doesn’t mean they are. Just because there were 2, 3, or 85 people claiming to be the pope doesn’t mean that all of them were.
 
Brad Haas:
The successor of Peter was Urban VI and his successors. You can’t depose a pope, nor have two at once. That others claimed to be popes doesn’t mean they were.

The infallibility of the pope when solemnly teaching on faith and morals is just that. It doesn’t mean he becomes unable to sin. It’s like a man who is a jerk, but the best surgeon in the world - the fact that he’s a jerk has nothing to do with whether he’s a good surgeon.
Click to expand...
read medieval european history. then claim this.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
I seem to remember a similar situation in the LDS church after the passing of Joseph Smith. His son said he was the prophet, while Brigham Young also claimed he was the prophet. By the same logic of your argument, how can you claim you follow the true prophet of God???

Just because someone claims to be something doesn’t mean they are. Just because there were 2, 3, or 85 people claiming to be the pope doesn’t mean that all of them were.
Click to expand...
nice try we claim restoration your the ones who have to prove that not one single pope was false. remember it was not until after the schism that your cardinals reformed the church. please explain how god whould justify evil men to be his representive on the earth.
 
paul, please explain how Jesus choose 12 men to be His Apostles and one of them betrayed HIM?
 
The horse was dead when I arrived, I guess. I’m gonna recommend that nobody else join this discussion… :rolleyes:
 
paul barlow:
nice try we claim restoration your the ones who have to prove that not one single pope was false. remember it was not until after the schism that your cardinals reformed the church. please explain how god whould justify evil men to be his representive on the earth.
Click to expand...
No wait. You claim that we had multiple popes at 1 time so how can we claim an unbroken line. You had 2 prohpets at 1 time how do YOU claim an unbroken line? It’s the EXACT same type situation! Restoration has nothing to do with it. You’re talking about multiple people claiming leadership of a church at the same time. The LDS church had this happen too. So how do you claim you follow the true prophet?
 
paul barlow:
nice try we claim restoration your the ones who have to prove that not one single pope was false. remember it was not until after the schism that your cardinals reformed the church. please explain how god whould justify evil men to be his representive on the earth.
Click to expand...
We have to “claim” no such thing. For your theory to be correct ALL priesthood authority was removed from the earth. That means that every bishop in the Catholic church lost their priesthood. What causes someone to lose their priesthood? Can sin cause this? How do you know that the man that ordained you hadn’t committed some grave sin that he hadn’t repented of? The fact is you can’t know. For all you know you’re not really a priesthood holder.
 
paul barlow:
I Have been studying your history a bit and during the middle ages you had more than one pope how can you claim that the pope is then the direct succesor of peter. see below
Schism, Great, or Schism of the West, division in the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. There was no question of faith or practice involved; the schism was a matter of persons and politics. Shortly after Gregory XI had returned the papacy from Avignon to Rome, he died (Mar. 27, 1378). The Romans feared that the papal court might be returned to Avignon, and there was rioting, with the mob demanding a Roman, or at least an Italian, pope. On Apr. 8 the 16 cardinals present elected Urban VI. The new pope was soon acting very offensively to all in the church. The cardinals met at Agnani and on Aug. 2 declared Urban’s election null. At Fondi on Sept. 20 they elected Robert of Geneva pope as Clement VII. Urban VI remained in Rome, refusing to step down, and Clement VII fled to Avignon, where he reigned surrounded by the former Roman court. There were thus two lines of popes. The popes at Rome were Urban VI (1378-89), Boniface IX (1389-1404), Innocent VII (1404-6), and Gregory XII (1406-15). Those of the rival line at Avignon were Clement VII (1378-94) and Benedict XIII (1394-1417; see Luna, Pedro de). Schism within schism ensued. France withdrew from obedience to Benedict XIII and recognized no pope (1398-1403, 1408-9). Theologians of the Univ. of Paris, led by Pierre d’Ailly and John Gerson, were anxious to end the schism, and they developed the theory that popes are subject to general councils. The Council of Pisa (1409; see Pisa, Council of) was the result. This meeting declared that Gregory XII of the Roman (or Urbanist) line and Benedict XIII of the Avignon (or Clementine) line were not popes and elected another, Alexander V. He died soon after, but his energetic successor, Baldassarre Cossa (John XXIII, 1410-15), detached most of Europe from his rivals. In 1414 John reluctantly convened the Council of Constance (see Constance, Council of). Gregory XII resigned. John XXIII and Benedict XIII, who refused to resign, were declared deposed by the council. Martin V was elected, and the schism was at an end. The main effects of the schism were to delay needed reforms in the church and to give rise to the conciliar theory, which was revived at the Council of Basel (see Basel, Council of).
now this seems to be politics to me. an you explain how the pope was appointed by princes and removed by princes. i don’t see this in scripture. then tell me about the borgia pope and how come he had a son and a daughter. why if the pope can not make a mistake, explain why this was only introduced last century.
Click to expand...
There was one pope at the time. He was pope as soon as he was elected and he could not be deposed by anyone on earth. If there is someone that claims, or is even elected pope while he is alive, they are not pope and they do not recieve the authority. Whether there were three or three thousand men claiming to be pope it doesn’t matter, there was one man who was actually pope. If a few cardinals decided today to elect a pope, they would only be going into schism, they would not actually be electing a new pope because there is a pope that is alive and who holds the office. When the pope dies, the cardinals will have authority to elect a new pope to fill the see of Rome. Until, then the only pope that is possible is Benedict XVI.

By the way, it is not new that you claim this. This has been brought up before. There are men who are alive now who claim to be pope. There is a man in Kansas who calls himself Pope Michael who was elected by his parents and a couple friends. This man is no more a pope than I am. There is a man in Montana who calls himself Pope Pius XIII who was not elected by anyone with authority. This man is no more a pope than “pope” Michael is or I am. There is one pope, and he is in Rome. There can not be another until he dies, no matter what, even if a bunch of bishops decide to elect a new one.
 
It was actually St. Catherine of Siena who convinced Gregory VII to resign. If he would not have resigned, he would have continued to be pope. The other two men, were never popes, they were what is called anti-popes as “pope” Michael and “pope” Pius XIII would be called today. Urban was pope before any others were elected. No man can declare the election invalid if the cardinals had gathered and elected a successor.

The Great Schism has nothing to do with this topic.

I don’t know about the borgia pope, but if he had a son and daughter, that means nothing. It does not affect papal infallability. Papal Infallability does not claim that the pope will never make a mistake. It simply claims that when the pope makes a statement, on a matter of faith and morals, and he is addressing it to the whole Church as something that must be held by all Catholics, he is preserved from error. This has only happened a few times in history. The borgia pope you mention would not fall under this.
 
paul barlow:
I Have been studying your history a bit and during the middle ages you had more than one pope how can you claim that the pope is then the direct succesor of peter. see below
Schism, Great, or Schism of the West, division in the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. There was no question of faith or practice involved; the schism was a matter of persons and politics. Shortly after Gregory XI had returned the papacy from Avignon to Rome, he died (Mar. 27, 1378). The Romans feared that the papal court might be returned to Avignon, and there was rioting, with the mob demanding a Roman, or at least an Italian, pope. On Apr. 8 the 16 cardinals present elected Urban VI. The new pope was soon acting very offensively to all in the church. The cardinals met at Agnani and on Aug. 2 declared Urban’s election null. At Fondi on Sept. 20 they elected Robert of Geneva pope as Clement VII. Urban VI remained in Rome, refusing to step down, and Clement VII fled to Avignon, where he reigned surrounded by the former Roman court. There were thus two lines of popes. The popes at Rome were Urban VI (1378-89), Boniface IX (1389-1404), Innocent VII (1404-6), and Gregory XII (1406-15). Those of the rival line at Avignon were Clement VII (1378-94) and Benedict XIII (1394-1417; see Luna, Pedro de). Schism within schism ensued. France withdrew from obedience to Benedict XIII and recognized no pope (1398-1403, 1408-9). Theologians of the Univ. of Paris, led by Pierre d’Ailly and John Gerson, were anxious to end the schism, and they developed the theory that popes are subject to general councils. The Council of Pisa (1409; see Pisa, Council of) was the result. This meeting declared that Gregory XII of the Roman (or Urbanist) line and Benedict XIII of the Avignon (or Clementine) line were not popes and elected another, Alexander V. He died soon after, but his energetic successor, Baldassarre Cossa (John XXIII, 1410-15), detached most of Europe from his rivals. In 1414 John reluctantly convened the Council of Constance (see Constance, Council of). Gregory XII resigned. John XXIII and Benedict XIII, who refused to resign, were declared deposed by the council. Martin V was elected, and the schism was at an end. The main effects of the schism were to delay needed reforms in the church and to give rise to the conciliar theory, which was revived at the Council of Basel (see Basel, Council of).
now this seems to be politics to me. an you explain how the pope was appointed by princes and removed by princes. i don’t see this in scripture. then tell me about the borgia pope and how come he had a son and a daughter. why if the pope can not make a mistake, explain why this was only introduced last century.
Click to expand...
Warren Jeffs, the prophet of the restored LDS Church is under indictment for polygamy and related charges. He has disappeared and is hiding from authorities. He claims to be the real prophet and claims Gordon B. Hinkley is a false prophet. Using your logic, you now have more than one prophet. How can you claim that Gordon B. Hinckley is the direct successor of Joseph Smith and not Warren Jeffs?
 
paul barlow:
why if the pope can not make a mistake, explain why this was only introduced last century.
Click to expand...
First, the doctrine of papal infallibility does not say that the pope cannot make a mistake. It also does not say that the pope is free from sin. What it says is that the Holy Spirit will not permit the pope to teach error in matters of faith and morals.

This is very similar to the LDS belief that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the Church astray. You LDS claim the same infallibility for your prophet as we claim for our pope.

Second, though the doctrine of papal infallibility was only universally pronounced by the Church 100 years ago, that only means that it only became necessary to declare it 100 years ago. Before that, no one ever questioned or opposed the doctrine, so there was no need to make an official proclamation about it.

You often have the same situation in your Church. It is only when there seems to be confusion or false teaching cropping up about something that the 1st Presidency feels the need to make an official pronouncement about it.

God bless,
Paul
 
It was actually St. Catherine of Siena who convinced Gregory VII to resign. If he would not have resigned, he would have continued to be pope. The other two men, were never popes, they were what is called anti-popes as “pope” Michael and “pope” Pius XIII would be called today. Urban was pope before any others were elected. No man can declare the election invalid if the cardinals had gathered and elected a successor.
Click to expand...
Jimmy, since Pope Gregory VII died (as pope) in 1085, it would have been quite difficult for St. Catherine, who died in 1380, to have persuaded him resign. 😉

What St. Catherine did do was to convince Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome (where he also died - not resigned - as Pope) since the papal court had been away from Rome in Avignon, France, for many years.
 
40.png
FCEGM:
Jimmy, since Pope Gregory VII died (as pope) in 1085, it would have been quite difficult for St. Catherine, who died in 1380, to have persuaded him resign. 😉

What St. Catherine did do was to convince Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome (where he also died - not resigned - as Pope) since the papal court had been away from Rome in Avignon, France, for many years.
Click to expand...
Haha, yes, that would be the wrong Gregory.😃

I am getting the Gregorys mixed up.
 
Jimmy,
I checked out the SSPI website. What a riot! An excellent illustration of the absurdity of radical traditionalism.
Paul
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Jimmy,
I checked out the SSPI website. What a riot! An excellent illustration of the absurdity of radical traditionalism.
Paul
Click to expand...
Paul,

I did the same, and admit that for the first few paragraphs (well, OK, more than a few!) I was thoroughly spoofed!
 
That is some of the best-written parady I have read in a long time! Reminiscent of the early Rush Limbaugh stuff…back when it was original and fresh!

Mike
40.png
ben_dy:
Paul,

I did the same, and admit that for the first few paragraphs (well, OK, more than a few!) I was thoroughly spoofed!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Jimmy,
I checked out the SSPI website. What a riot! An excellent illustration of the absurdity of radical traditionalism.
Paul
Click to expand...
Hahaha, I forgot I had that attached to my posts. It is absolutely hillarious.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top