The ANTI-Popes

[dje101]

Were these guys considered to be real popes? If they are, wouldn’t they discount the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

 

[MarkThompson]

Were these guys considered to be real popes? If they are, wouldn’t they discount the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

No. Antipopes are people who claimed to be Pope, and attempted to rule as Pope, without being legitimately entitled to the office. Most cases of this in history were due to schisms in the Church leading to multiple factions each claiming to be the legitimate one (see, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the Western Schism). Other cases arose through Italian political machinations, when for instance a powerful group of nobles would attempt to set up one of their own favorites as Pope while there was a legitimate Pope already reigning. In quite a few instances, antipopes were subsequently reconciled to the Church after recanting.

Since these people were not actually Popes, but only pretenders to the title, their existence has no bearing on the issue of Papal infallibility.

 

[dje101]

I have another question about the “anti-popes”.

A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. Catholic Encyclopedia

So if these antipopes were in the position of the pontiff illegally, why did the church follow them for so long? Why did the church allow them to stay in the office? I mean, Felix II lasted 10 years, Honorius II lasted 11, Clement III lasted 30…whats the deal?

 

[Dempsey1919]

So if these antipopes were in the position of the pontiff illegally, why did the church follow them for so long?

The Church did not follow them. They were not popes. They were pretending to be popes and probably lead many people astray.

 

[laszlo]

Were these guys considered to be real popes? If they are, wouldn’t they discount the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

The exercise of the papal infallibility is a very rare event, and requires very strict conditions. In the past there was no anti-pope declaring infallible statement with full authority.

If the Church is living long enough, almost definitely there will be false pope who will pretend to declare his truth as infallible, and the cleanup after him will help our descendant understand the process of the revelation deeper.

One thing is sure: God and only God is the Truth, we comprehend only morsels from that, and if someone claims that his morsel is the Truth, he is tempted by the Evil one.

 

[valoriuslobo]

The Church did not follow them. They were not popes. They were pretending to be popes and probably lead many people astray.

Did these wayward “pontiffs” have followers? If so, were they only people who stood to benefit or were there also some commoners?

 

[markomalley]

You might want to look at this Catholic Encyclopedia article. It gives a general description, has a list of antipopes, and links to the bios of most of them…showing how they were “elected.”

If you take a look at some of the bios on that site, you will see a common theme: a small group wanted to usurp power and elected their own pope.

Why did the Church allow them to stay in power? Personally, I think a lot of fables regarding the temporal omnipotence of the medieval Church are greatly over exaggerated…a corollary to the “Black Legend”

 

[PacoG]

The late anti-pope (read: sede vacantist) buffoon known as Pius XIII (aka Fr. Lucien Earl Pulvermacher, OFMCap) issues all kinds of wacky motu proprios (including one outlawing Gothic chasubles) and a couple of encyclicals to boot. They were virtually ignored by everyone except the insane anti-cardinals he created and the other wackos who live in their cult-like compound.