Question about popes/anti popes

  • Thread starter Thread starter 13pollitos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

13pollitos

Guest
I am not sure where to post this so I’m asking it here. Please move if it belongs somewhere else.

This question is asking about the process of declaring a pope an anti pope. I asked in another thread, but that thread closed before I got an answer. This is from the other thread:


13pollitos

19h

7de16dc7a7c37d0d7f19764e5c6a30f15a95b4d6.png
twf:
…and the election of Popes. The Church recognizes +Francis as Bishop of Rome, thus it is a dogmatic fact that he is Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
This is interesting to me. How were the anti popes recognized throughout history? How was it determined that they were not actually Bishop of Rome, even though they were originally recognized as such? Is there a process followed to determine that, or is looking back at their election and events surrounding it that reveals it?

——————

If anyone could answer these questions I would appreciate it.
 
13pollitos said:
How were the anti popes recognized throughout history?
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

New Advent lists thirty. I can think of at least two in existence right now.
13pollitos said:
How was it determined that they were not actually Bishop of Rome, even though they were originally recognized as such? Is there a process followed to determine that, or is looking back at their election and events surrounding it that reveals it?
Click to expand...
Unraveling an Antipope from a true Pope can and has been a messy business (see the Avignon Papacies). The process mostly depends on which Antipope we’re talking about.
 
i am watching a great series at the moment, it covers all the Popes up to St Pope John Paul II

It is called
Saints and Sinners and is put out by Australian SBS on dvd. Its certainly opening my eyes, its just a skim through but is a good start in these matters
 
Fauken said:
. I can think of at least two in existence right now
Click to expand...
What do you mean you can think of at least two in existence now? Are there currently people claiming to be pope that really aren’t? Do they have followers?
 
Yes, there are a couple out there. One goes by Pope Michael and is, I believe, in Kansas. They each have tiny followings. They could not in any sense claim to be recognized by the Catholic Church as the Bishop of Rome.
 
I don’t think that’s exactly how it works I think they actually need to have an established influence and authority in relation to the church not just be some raving lunatic. 😆
 
This is laughable. Again, these people are so insignificant that the Church probably doesn’t even know they exist. One of them represents the “Palmarian” Church, that means he’s not even claiming the Roman chair. He’s just some breakaway.
 
Last edited:
SpearOfMichael said:
One of them represents the “Palmarian” Church, that means he’s not even claiming the Roman chair. He’s just some breakaway.
Click to expand...
He’s a breakaway alright, but anyone claiming the Papacy is also claiming the Roman chair. You cannot separate the Pope from the Bishop of Rome.
 
I think that’s a misguided comment because the Coptics and a number of Orthodox Churches also have Popes. It’s not a Roman Exclusive title.
 
SpearOfMichael said:
I think that’s a misguided comment because the Coptics and a number of Orthodox Churches also have Popes. It’s not a Roman Exclusive title.
Click to expand...
Are either of the two I mentioned even remotely connected to the Coptic or Orthodox churches or claiming those seats? No. It’s pretty obvious which Papacy they’re claiming. And with that Papacy, you cannot separate it from the Bishop of Rome.
 
Last edited:
I reiterate, This man claims to be of a “palmarian catholic church” not of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
I agree and was just getting ready to post that same thing. I would think that a true antipope would have to be recognized by the world as pope, Bishop of Rome, sitting on the Chair of Peter, just as the ones listed in the New Advent article were. The rest are just lunatics.

Either way, I was speaking specifically of the ones on the New Advent timeline of popes. How were some of the pretty nasty men not declared anti Pope uet others were? I’m not saying all or even many, but there have been some very bad man grab the thrown. Some of these are still recognized as true popes. How do we tell the difference between just a bad pope and an anti pope? Can it only be done afterwards, by examine history?
 
Mostly politics and Imperial Edicts. An emperor would get mad at the Church and try to install his own Pope or there would be two rival groups within the Vatican and some would back one Pope while the rest would back another.
 
SpearOfMichael said:
I reiterate, This man claims to be of a “palmarian catholic church” not of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And yet he claims to be the valid Pope, and as such, Bishop of Rome. They don’t actually call themselves the Palmarian Catholic Church, that’s what Wikipedia calls them.
 
In either case he is no significance to the RCC and his reign is so minute it exists in one compound in which nobody really knows what is taking place. He cannot be conceivably called an anti-pope just a zealous defector.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top