Papacy question

[Monica4316]

I came across a quote from Vatican I:

Vatican 1 Dogma: If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of the blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

My question is, what is meant by perpetual? because there have been antipopes… and there are times without a Pope, like right now.

There have been some prophesies, like by St Francis, that there would be an antipope in the last days. Can it be that there would not be a valid Pope on earth at the time when Jesus returns, like a long period without a Pope? How does this relate to the dogma?

I’m having difficulty understanding the dogma and these prophesies. Thanks!

ps: my intention is NOT to discuss whether particular prophesies are true/false, only how to understand this dogma! thanks! I would appreciate if particular prophesies were not discussed and I’m not rejecting the prophesies at all, in fact I’m open to them, I’m only seeking to understand the dogma more deeply

 

[JimG]

The papacy can be vacant, as it is between popes. And there can be antipopes any time. There is an antipope right now in Kansas, who claims to be the valid pope. But the fact that thre is an antipope, or more than one, doesn’t mean that there will not be a true pope.

 

[DavidFilmer]

because there have been antipopes

All (recognized - not the guy in Kansas) anti-Popes have been men of good will and intent. One anti-Pope (St. Hippolytus) is a Saint of the Church.

 

[JimG]

All (recognized - not the guy in Kansas) anti-Popes have been men of good will and intent. One anti-Pope (St. Hippolytus) is a Saint of the Church.

Well, I have no reason to believe that the guy in Kansas is not a man of good will. He is just misguided. He was elected by a “conclave” which consisted mostly of his family and believes that all the popes since Vatican II are invalid–except for him.

 

[Bonnie]

There have been some prophesies, like by St Francis, that there would be an antipope in the last days.

To which St. Francis are you referring? I’m not aware of any such prophecy by St. Francis of Assisi. I’d be willing to make a fairly large bet that none of the Francises made such a prophecy. There are a number of hoax prophecies out there, especially on the Internet.

 

[EricFilmer]

Well, I have no reason to believe that the guy in Kansas is not a man of good will. He is just misguided. He was elected by a “conclave” which consisted mostly of his family and believes that all the popes since Vatican II are invalid–except for him.

I don’t think David was making a statement about the guy in Kansas’ moral character, but simply pointing out that this person is not recognized by the Church as an anti-pope. Although there does not seem to be an official definition for this term, the general idea is that an anti-pope is able to make a significant claim (although not necessarily valid) to the papacy and/or have wide support. Although lists of recognized anti-popes can vary, they tend to be in the range of 30 to 40 names. Given such a small list over a span of 2000 years, it seems evident that it is not enough to simply declare oneself to be a pope in order to be a recognized anti-pope.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t think David was making a statement about the guy in Kansas’ moral character, but simply pointing out that this person is not recognized by the Church as an anti-pope.

Indeed. I don’t know anything about the guy, so I have no opinion on his moral character. But I am sure that some people vying for the Papal throne have not been men of good will, and the Church does not acknowledge their claim.

I think the Church ignores the guy in Kansas because his claim is absurd.