How many heretical Popes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bonocorium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bonocorium

Guest
I heard that the Church has made a list somewhere of some false pretenders to the throne of Peter.

Which Popes are on it?
Was that list infallible?
Which year was it made and is it up to date?

Thanks.
 
Bonocorium said:
I heard that the Church has made a list somewhere of some false pretenders to the throne of Peter.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are asking about anti-Popes, but anti-Popes are not heretics (or evil). An anti-Pope is someone who believes he has a valid claim to the Chair of Peter, but is mistaken (so he is guilty of being incorrect, but not guilty of sin, because it’s not a sin to be wrong about something). anti-Popes are men of good will and intent who are answering (what they believe to be) a call to serve. They are not heretics, and they are not evil (one anti-Pope is a Saint of the Church).

The process of naming a Pope has not always been as well defined as it is today, and there has been confusion at times over who has a legitimate claim (heck, scholars *still *argue about Sylvester III),

There’s no official list of anti-Popes (the Church proclaims who IS the Pope, not who is NOT the Pope). If there were such a list, it would not be a matter of Doctrine, and would thus not be eligible for infallibility.
 
heretical Popes?

I know nothing of heretical popes. You must be talking about history of the papacy. I just know heretical priest and I have posted the name in my earlier post. One of his teaching to Charismatics group according to informations I collected from some members of different Charismatic groups (actually I found out when we gather for our Charismatic prayer) is ‘you can call upon demons to join in praising God’. This is what this ‘evil priest’ taught them. I corrected that telling them NOT to do that and NEVER DO IT AGAIN, to invite demons to join in prayer. I also explained why that teaching is WRONG. That is for sure is HERETICAL. I teach them that they must FIGHT demons but not inviting them to join them. Amazingly this evil priest teaches some charismatics to do that and to other groups he does not.
Therefore I don’t believe in the phrase ‘heretical popes’ but I do know an heretical evil priest for sure.
 
you are mistaken. there have never been any popes who have ever taught heresy. not one. the Holy Spirit prevents this. its happened twice in history. a pope tried to say something wrong and the HS made him mute til he recanted. but no pope has ever been a heretic. yes, some may have lead a bad personal life, but never heresy. only 5 popes ever had a “Bad personal life” such as committing adultery and so on. but we are only human, and humans sin. no one ever said the pope was perfect. only God is
 
<<There’s no official list of anti-Popes (the Church proclaims who IS the Pope, not who is NOT the Pope). If there were such a list, it would not be a matter of Doctrine, and would thus not be eligible for infallibility.>>

So you cant know for sure who is and who isnt a proper Pope?
So we cant know infallibly JPII was a proper Pope?

On some sedevacantist vid I saw, they mention that there are 41 anti-Popes and showed a list.
Why would such a list not be a matter of Doctrine? The list of the canonical books is a matter doctrine right?

Thanks!!
 
Bonocorium said:
<<There’s no official list of anti-Popes (the Church proclaims who IS the Pope, not who is NOT the Pope). If there were such a list, it would not be a matter of Doctrine, and would thus not be eligible for infallibility.>>

So you cant know for sure who is and who isnt a proper Pope?
So we cant know infallibly JPII was a proper Pope?

On some sedevacantist vid I saw, they mention that there are 41 anti-Popes and showed a list.
Why would such a list not be a matter of Doctrine? The list of the canonical books is a matter doctrine right?

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
Put it this way - there have been times where there were multiple claimants to the Papacy, each being quite well supported by factions of Cardinals and so on. Naturally these can be confusing.

In fact, to remove all doubt at the end of the last such period in Church history, the Western Schism, all the three claimants to the Papacy resigned and a fourth one was unanimously chosen by supporters of all three previous claimants. Since that fourth was unanimously agreed upon by those with the authority to choose, we can be safe in saying he was a true Pope.

Given that maybe a handful of people in all of Christendom, none of them of any great import or influence within the Church or having any role in the election of Popes, have challenged the legitimacy of JP2’s election as Pope, it is quite safe to assume that he too is indeed the true Pope. If his claim was not in genuine doubt during all the decades he reigned, it is not going to be in the future either. Likewise with Benedict 16.
 
LilyM said:
Put it this way - there have been times where there were multiple claimants to the Papacy, each being quite well supported by factions of Cardinals and so on. Naturally these can be confusing.

In fact, to remove all doubt at the end of the last such period in Church history, the Western Schism, all the three claimants to the Papacy resigned and a fourth one was unanimously chosen by supporters of all three previous claimants. Since that fourth was unanimously agreed upon by those with the authority to choose, we can be safe in saying he was a true Pope.

Given that maybe a handful of people in all of Christendom, none of them of any great import or influence within the Church or having any role in the election of Popes, have challenged the legitimacy of JP2’s election as Pope, it is quite safe to assume that he too is indeed the true Pope. If his claim was not in genuine doubt during all the decades he reigned, it is not going to be in the future either. Likewise with Benedict 16.
Click to expand...
I get it. We can be near-certain (97%+) that JP2 was a valid Pope, but never fully certain (Just as Cardinal Bellarmino said that we cant peer into someone’s heart).
 
Bonocorium said:
I get it. We can be near-certain (97%+) that JP2 was a valid Pope, but never fully certain (Just as Cardinal Bellarmino said that we cant peer into someone’s heart).
Click to expand...
What makes you think there is any room for doubt? Those who were authorised to elect Popes chose him, and loyally supported and served him as Pope throughout his decades of reign.

There is no hint that they, whose role it was to elect the Pope, either did not in fact choose him, or at any later stage withdrew their support, nor did they otherwise act in any way which could possibly cast any doubt on the legitimacy of his pontificate.
 
Bonocorium said:
I get it. We can be near-certain (97%+) that JP2 was a valid Pope, but never fully certain (Just as Cardinal Bellarmino said that we cant peer into someone’s heart).
Click to expand...
you can be 100% certain that JP2 was a valid Pope. He was elected by a majority of cardinals who were validly appointed successors of the Apostles.
 
Bonocorium said:
So you cant know for sure who is and who isnt a proper Pope?
So we cant know infallibly JPII was a proper Pope?
Click to expand...
John Paul II was NOT an anti-pope. He was indeed a proper Pope, and one of the best our Church has ever had.

He reached out to the faithful, evangelised and spread the Word of God in a way no other Pope before him ever did. He promoted social justice worldwide, and.stood firm on Catholic doctrine in the face of secular forces, and imposed a much needed discipline on liberal practices and ideas that were building within the Church.

John Paul II was an amazing Pope and I count myself extremely privileged on have managed to have been able to reach out and have him hold my hand during a Papal audience in Rome.

It is an easy cop-out, by Sedevaticanists to claim that the Pope is not a valid Pope just because they disagree with what Rome is telling them. It gives them a justification to disobey Rome and fool themselves into thinking they’re justified ion doing so. It’s a bit like a rebellious child who doesn’t like what his mother is telling him to do turning round and saying to her, “I don’t have to do what you say because you’re not my real mother anyway,” and then using this as a justification for his continued disobedience.
 
Bonocorium said:
On some sedevacantist vid I saw, they mention that there are 41 anti-Popes and showed a list.
Why would such a list not be a matter of Doctrine? The list of the canonical books is a matter doctrine right?
Click to expand...
Yes there have been anti-popes, but the Church has never hidden this fact. As to it being doctrine, why would it be doctrine? What has it go to do with doctrine? Doctrine has to do with teachings. It is however a matter of record. Some Popes were elected under erroneous circumstances, and also some individuals knowingly took the position of Pope without due process, often when the sitting Pope was in exile or in prison.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Sedevaticanists portray things to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church, some sort of cover-up. There isn’t. The Church is open about the anti-popes, it’s a matter of record. Nothing is being covered up.

Pope John Paul II was elected legally and following all due process. He was indeed a properly elected Pope. It is not a matter of opinion at all (regardless of what anyone personally feels about his teachings to us) it is a matter of fact.

As Roman Catholics we are bound to submit to the Pope. If someone claims that Pope John Paul II was an anti-pope then they are not a Roman Catholic.

Don’t listen to the lies peddled by Sedevaticanists, they just trying to put doubts in the minds of the Faithful, They’re trying to chip away at faith of individual Catholics. Don’t let them
 
Ok, back to my original point. Since we have no official infallible list of anti-Popes, like how we have an official infallible list for the canon of scripture, can we know infallibly which of the Popes in history are true Popes, or can we only have a near-certain assurance that all of them were true Popes?

So the question is, can we be certain in knowing if every single anti-Pope that has ever lived, has been identified as an anti-pope, since no official infallible list exists.

Thanks!!
 
Bonocorium said:
Ok, back to my original point. Since we have no official infallible list of anti-Popes, like how we have an official infallible list for the canon of scripture, can we know infallibly which of the Popes in history are true Popes, or can we only have a near-certain assurance that all of them were true Popes?

So the question is, can we be certain in knowing if every single anti-Pope that has ever lived, has been identified as an anti-pope, since no official infallible list exists.

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
Where are you heading with these questions?

We can have more than a near-certain assurance about the vast majority of our Pontiffs, why do you keep asserting that there is any room for doubt about more than a few?

What practical difference does it make anyway? It’s not like any claimant to the Papacy whose legitimacy is in question ever produced ex cathedra dogmatic or otherwise supposedly infallible teachings or anything. The dogma has all been produced either by Ecumenical Councils or indisputably valid Popes. 🤷
 
I’m not sure of a comprehensive list but one example is Pope Honorius I who was anathemitized and condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, for his view that Christ had only one will. This is obviously different from the anti-Popes as Honorius I is not in a disputed line of succession.

More from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
And from OrthodoxWiki: orthodoxwiki.org/Honorius_I_of_Rome
 
Bonocorium said:
Ok, back to my original point. Since we have no official infallible list of anti-Popes, like how we have an official infallible list for the canon of scripture, can we know infallibly which of the Popes in history are true Popes, or can we only have a near-certain assurance that all of them were true Popes?

So the question is, can we be certain in knowing if every single anti-Pope that has ever lived, has been identified as an anti-pope, since no official infallible list exists.

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
I am not sure what your point is having an “infallible” list of anti-popes. Do you know the meaning of infallibility as used in the Catholic Church? Or is your question just a simple “Do you have a complete and accurate list of anti-popes?” There is no doctrine in a name list.
 
If I was the Devil I would manifest myself inside of a virgin, say that I am the Son of God and convince everyone that they can now be forgiven for every sin just by asking, thus opening the floodgates for an unprecedented and unending torrent of sin.

I would start with the uneducated and the poor. I would impress them with some magic tricks, teach them to pretend to eat my flesh, drink my blood, and always, ALWAYS use MY name when speaking to God.

I would most assuredly use my immortality to fool them into thinking I came back from the dead as proof of my divinity.

What better way is there to channel more souls away from God and straight into Hell?
 
Bonocorium,

You’ve already been given lists of from respected Catholic sources. Why are you persisting with this? What exactly are you getting at? And why did you focus in on Pope John Paul II in particular in your opening post?

Certain Sedevaticanists use doubt as a weapon to cast doubt on Popes whose teaching they didn’t agree with. It’s a completely circular argument going along the lines of, “I doubt that Pope X was a true Pope, since nobody can be 100% certain about any Pope my doubts are therefore justified, so I am right to doubt that Pope X was a true Pope”.

If you take that view then we may as well say that we’ve never had any true Popes. If you want to go gown that road then you may as well deny the Papacy in itself. What about St Peter even? Can we be sure he was a true Pope? Was Matthew there when Jesus told Peter he would be the ‘rock’ and would hold the ‘keys’? How do you know? Perhaps Matthew heard it on the grapevine and his got wires crossed? Are the Protestants right in maintaining that Jesus was not actually setting up Peter as a Pope at all?

If someone has an issue with John Paul II (or any other Pope) being a valid Pope then they should put forward reasons why they think his appointment was invalid. Not why they disagree with his teachings, but why they think his appointment is invalid, what procedures were not followed appropriately etc.
 
frjohnmaryt said:
heretical Popes?

I know nothing of heretical popes. You must be talking about history of the papacy. I just know heretical priest and I have posted the name in my earlier post. One of his teaching to Charismatics group according to informations I collected from some members of different Charismatic groups (actually I found out when we gather for our Charismatic prayer) is ‘you can call upon demons to join in praising God’. This is what this ‘evil priest’ taught them. I corrected that telling them NOT to do that and NEVER DO IT AGAIN, to invite demons to join in prayer. I also explained why that teaching is WRONG. That is for sure is HERETICAL. I teach them that they must FIGHT demons but not inviting them to join them. Amazingly this evil priest teaches some charismatics to do that and to other groups he does not.
Therefore I don’t believe in the phrase ‘heretical popes’ but I do know an heretical evil priest for sure.
Click to expand...
Report him to the Bishop …
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top