Question About False Popes

  • Thread starter Thread starter clouded_coffee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

clouded_coffee

Guest
So, recently my mom has found something from a Catholic priest (or maybe a bishop?) saying that every Pope since Pope Pius VI has been a false Pope because of these different Popes commending other religion’s practices, particularly Judaism. I guess Vatican II also has something to do with it. I’m fuzzy on the details cause the whole things is still a little confusing to me :hypno: Anyway, she started telling me how she never really thought she would ever have to worry about a false Pope.

This basically got me wondering about how the general public handled/reacted to false Popes in the past, and I was wondering if anyone had any web links and/or books that talk about this subject? I know its kind of specific, which is probably why its hard to find stuff on the web haha.

Thank you!
 
The belief that there is no current pope is called “sedevacantism.” It’s a forbidden topic on these boards, basically. There are people who do not acknowledge our current pope, but call themselves Catholics. These are sedevacantists, and they are wrong. It is a heretical viewpoint, and I am saddened to hear about the priest.

However, over the years, there have been several false popes, who really were (are) false, and there are currently several ones. They are called anti-popes.

Your mother doesn’t have to worry about a false pope if she acknowledges all the popes that the Catholic Church professes to have been led by, including our current one, Benedict XVI.
 
Give er a book written by our current Pope. She wont have doubts after that. He’s the right man for the job. 🙂
 
There is a difference between historical anti-Popes (false popes) and the argument of the Sedevacantist.

Previous false popes have been improperly elected. The Sedevacantist argument is that the current popes are false popes because they are heretics. Thus there is little historical parallel and no historical precedence to their claims

“Where Peter is, there is the church”
 
clouded_coffee said:
So, recently my mom has found something from a Catholic priest (or maybe a bishop?) saying that every Pope since Pope Pius VI has been a false Pope because of these different Popes commending other religion’s practices, particularly Judaism. I guess Vatican II also has something to do with it. I’m fuzzy on the details cause the whole things is still a little confusing to me :hypno: Anyway, she started telling me how she never really thought she would ever have to worry about a false Pope.

This basically got me wondering about how the general public handled/reacted to false Popes in the past, and I was wondering if anyone had any web links and/or books that talk about this subject? I know its kind of specific, which is probably why its hard to find stuff on the web haha.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Do not waste your time on it. We have Benedict. Now, am I to investigate all the nuances of the 200 Popes before him?
 
It’s been a while since I listened to it, but I seem to recall liking the discussion of Sedevacantism given by Jimmy Akin in the first part of the second episode of his podcast. Here’s a link if anyone is interested. You can click on the little “POD” symbol next to the title to listen.

[jimmyak(name removed by moderator)odcast.libsyn.com/002-sedevacantism-is-jimmy-a-robot-and-the-seal-of-confession-jimmy-akin-podcast-48-05?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jimmyak(name removed by moderator)odcast+%28Jimmy+Akin+Podcast%29&utm_content=FeedBurner](http://jimmyak(name removed by moderator)odcast.libsyn.com/002-sedevacantism-is-jimmy-a-robot-and-the-seal-of-confession-jimmy-akin-podcast-48-05?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jimmyak(name removed by moderator)odcast+%28Jimmy+Akin+Podcast%29&utm_content=FeedBurner)
 
clouded_coffee said:
So, recently my mom has found something from a Catholic priest (or maybe a bishop?) saying that every Pope since Pope Pius VI has been a false Pope because of these different Popes commending other religion’s practices, particularly Judaism. I guess Vatican II also has something to do with it. I’m fuzzy on the details cause the whole things is still a little confusing to me :hypno: Anyway, she started telling me how she never really thought she would ever have to worry about a false Pope.

This basically got me wondering about how the general public handled/reacted to false Popes in the past, and I was wondering if anyone had any web links and/or books that talk about this subject? I know its kind of specific, which is probably why its hard to find stuff on the web haha.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
These are groups called sedevacantists - an extreme form of Catholic Traditionalism, rejecting Vatican II as apostate and all further popes as antipopes - and are schismatics and heretics who are not in communion with the Catholic Church. Listen not to what they say. Coming in to contact with this sort of trash is not uncommon for more conservative Catholics, as there is some overlap, especially on the internet, between conservative, traditionalist Catholics in good standing, who submit to the lawful authority of the Bishop of Rome, and those who are schismatic sedevacantists. Some, such as SSPX, are not in good standing with Rome, or are in irregular standing, but do not deny the Holy Father’s authority; rapprochement with them are possible. Other traditionalists, such as FSSP, are in good standing with Rome. Others, these sedevacantists and other, smaller groups who have elected their own “popes”, have severed communion irrevocably, and with which no rapprochement is possible as long as they hold any of their current beliefs regarding the ecclesiastical structure of the church and the validity of all of her ecumenical councils.

I, personally, think it is a good thing that the current Holy Father is more conservative than the last few; the “Spirit of Vatican II” seems to often be used to justify all sorts of innovations, breaks with tradition, and heresies that are just as damnable as sedevacantism (such as the “Catholic” “Priestess” groups), and Benedict XVI seems to be doing a good job at halting the more egregiously modernist and liberal interpretations of the documents, as well as his reforms regarding the celebration of the Tridentine mass.
 
clouded_coffee said:
So, recently my mom has found something from a Catholic priest (or maybe a bishop?) saying that every Pope since Pope Pius VI has been a false Pope because of these different Popes commending other religion’s practices, particularly Judaism. I guess Vatican II also has something to do with it. I’m fuzzy on the details cause the whole things is still a little confusing to me :hypno: Anyway, she started telling me how she never really thought she would ever have to worry about a false Pope.

This basically got me wondering about how the general public handled/reacted to false Popes in the past, and I was wondering if anyone had any web links and/or books that talk about this subject? I know its kind of specific, which is probably why its hard to find stuff on the web haha.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Pius VI was the pope who was captured by Napoleon’s troops and held prisoner. Are you sure this is the last pope your mother recognizes? She probably means Pope Pius XII.

At any point in history, it can be helpful to recall that the Church teaches that popes are only infallible when they say they are. Assuming a pope is teaching error, how can a pope be false, if he refrains from using teaching his error with all of his authority?
 
Oh, I wouldn’t even think of going there out of fear of being plunged into heresy.
I have enough trouble staying in a state of grace.
 
clouded_coffee said:
So, recently my mom has found something from a Catholic priest (or maybe a bishop?) saying that every Pope since Pope Pius VI has been a false Pope because of these different Popes commending other religion’s practices, particularly Judaism. I Thank you!
Click to expand...
no she is not quoting a Catholic source, she is quoting a virulently anti-Catholic source. There are many non-Catholic sources that attack the Catholic Church and the authority of the papacy, but they at least are honest about their origins and agenda.

A site that claims to be Catholic, yet attacks the Church and the Papacy is far more evil and dangerous, a wolf in sheep’s clothing in fact as well as allegory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top