Three popes

[gap51]

What more are you looking for?
Something to get me removed?

Pray God No!

I want you to become Catholic. :yup:

 

[mercygate]

Not so with Pope John XXIII who reigned between 1958 - 1963. He was great.

Can someone please explain why 2 popes with the same name … being pope or antipope is irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. Think: there were not “two Popes with the same name.” The first person to claim the name John XXIII was not legitimately elected, hence, he was not the Pope.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not so with Pope John XXIII who reigned between 1958 - 1963. He was great.

Can someone please explain why 2 popes with the same name … being pope or antipope is irrelevant.

The Pope is a human always was, even during the absence of a Pope God’s religion continues. If someone gets an army and conquers the Vatican, they could force Papal Elections they would all be Anti Popes. Then if you kill the real Pope to open the office, then force Cardinals to vote per your orders (form of simony)these are still Anti-Popes you can do this for 100 years. After that the successors of real Bishops scattered around the world, would simply start electing real Popes and the issue becomes history. The reason is the Holy Spirit guides the Bishops. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

These types of postings are not allowed

No! No! No! … there must be a better answer to your flipancy. But if you must, do explain yourself more fluidly. Thanks.

Pray God No!

I want you to become Catholic. :yup:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Taken together, these three passages are intended to show that God revealed to the desciples the status of Jesus as the Messiah, and not the status of Peter as a pope. It is Peter who confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, not Jesus who confesses the papacy of Peter.

Jesus is the Messiah and Peter pretty much acknowledge that Jesus is the Promised Messiah spoken through the prophets.

Jesus did say that he will build his Church on Peter. Let us take the Aramaic languaged used. Aramaic is the language of Jesus.

“You are Kepha, and Upon this Kepha I will build my Church.” Kepha is Aramaic word for Rock. Peter derives from the Greek word Petros, or Petra, which also mean Rock. Jesus changed Simon, Son of Bar Jona to Kepha.

There is a meaning to this. Jesus gave Peter the keys. If you deny that Peter is not the rock in Matthew 16:18 then why bother naming Simon, Son of Jona Peter in the first place. Jesus might as well left his name as Simon.

The “rock” on which Jesus was building His church was the confession of Peter, that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah.

No that is incorrect. You are not reading the Scripture in the full light of the entire Scripture at all. The Rock is Cepha, or Kepha. If Jesus meant that the rock is Peter, Jesus might as well renamed himself Kepha, and Peter would remain Simon son of Bar Jona.

If that “rock” was Peter, then it seems odd that Paul would have needed to correct Peter regarding a wrong teaching. (see Gal. 2:11-16)

Jimmy Akin gave a right answer on this regards to this passage:

When this passage is read in context, it becomes clear that Paul was not questioning Peter’s teaching, but was admonishing him for failing to practice what he preached. Peter knew full well that Jews are saved in the different manner as the Gentiles, but by leaving table fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter’s actions were hypocritical. For this reason, Paul opposed him to his face, for by his actions he was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14).

While this was a sin on Peter’s behalf, it does not infringe upon the gift of infallibility. After all, the Holy Spirit still used him to infallibly write two books of inerrant Scripture. By mentioning this, it is useful to draw a parallel between the inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church. While they are distinct, the fact that all Protestants accept the inerrancy of Scripture can be used by the Catholic apologist to explain God’s reasons behind infallibility.

If God can take fallible and sinful men (the authors of sacred scripture) and transmit his truth through them without error, why would God not be able to take fallible, sinful men (the pope and bishops), and use them to preserve his teaching without error? This is the only safeguard that his Church has to keep the pure teaching of the apostles from being tainted. Otherwise, we are left with an inerrant document (the Bible), that is used by 30,000 different denominations to justify their contradictory teachings. The fault is not in the Scriptures but in the desire to part with its authoritative interpreter—the Church.

There is unity on this matter.

 

[gap51]

These types of postings are not allowed

Well please help me! What sort of postings are not allowed? All I’m trying to do is answer a genuine question.

 

[Catholig]

Texasroofer,

I didn’t see anything wrong with Gap51’s post, and don’t see why it shouldn’t be allowed. It was at least half a joke, but also reflects the desire catholics should have to bring everyone to the Church.

Catholig

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I read something about this (or something like this) on wikipedia too long ago but now am having trouble finding it even when using the “avignon papacy” as a starting point. What I remember is that there was one pope (not an avignon one) who purchased the papacy from his predecessor (who was also his god-son), but with noble intentions, and even gave it up once he had been told it was simony. I could really empathise with him. But I just can’t find the information now. Does anyone know who this was?

Catholig

That sounds like Gregory VI, who bought the Papacy from Benedict IX in 1045 or 1046, so that Benedict could be more easily persuaded to stop disgracing the Papacy by his bad morals and his habit of resigning then deciding he wanted to continue in office. Benedict was Pope on three separate occasions, and may have been under the canonical age for election to the episcopate at the time; it’s not clear whether he was 12 or 22 in 1032, when he was first elected; but he was totally unsuitable. Gregory had to resign because of the uncanonical means by which he became Pope, but at least Benedicy did not succeed him.​

BTW, I got my info from a Catholic book printed in 1964.

As to the Great Schism of the West: the three claimants who were around in 1414 are called Popes “in their obediences” - so the acts of Benedict XIII, who was elected in 1394 and deposed in 1417 after he refused to resign voluntarily, as Gregory XII (Pope in the Roman obedience from 1406 to 1415), & John XXIII (Pope in the Avignon obedience from 1415 to 1417) had done, were treated as valid for Spain & Scotland (which were the parts of the Church which maintained the legitimacy of his position); while Avignon (& the whole of France ?) maintained that John XXIII was the lawful pope. And the same applies to those those parts of the Church which supported the Pope of the Roman line or obedience. So what each claimant to the Papacy did in the areas obedient to him, was treated (one the confusion had been cleared up by the resignation or deposition of the three claimants) as being canonically valid in that area. Which is why St.Vincent Ferrer is not treated as having been a schismatic, even though part of his career was spent in communion with Benedict XIII, before he decided that the Roman claimant was the rightful Pope.

It’s essential not to project the doctrine & practice of Catholicism as it now is, onto Catholicism as it was in 1378 (when Urban VI was deserted by some of the cardinals who elected him, because of his unstable behaviour, in favour of Cardinal Robert of Geneva, who was elected Pope Clement VII) or in 1418, when the Council of Constance (which had to pick up the pieces from the chaos of the 40 years that followed, and elected a new Pope in Martin V (1417-31).) Popes can no longer be deposed for scandalizing the Church - then, they could be.

For more on all of this read Walter Ullmann, or Father Philip Hughes, S.J.

Father Hughes’ “History of the Church” can be found here: http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/book/v3toc.htm

The link is to volume three, which covers the period that includes the Western Schism of 1378-1417. All of vol. 1 & a slice of vol. 2 is now on line.

All of which helps to explain why, when Cardinal Borja “acquired” the Papacy in 1492, he became Alexander VI, not V; for Alexander V was the predecessor of John XXIII (formerly Baldassare Cossa; Alexander V is also the last Greek so far to be elected Pope). And why books older than 1947 refer to Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII. 1947 is when the list of popes was revised, so that John XXIII is no longer Baldassare Cossa, but Angelo Roncalli, who became John XXIII in 1958. That revised list is the basis for the list of Popes printed in the “Catholic Almanac”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

newadvent.org/cathen/08434a.htm for “John XXIII” (as he was long known)