Three popes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kendy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
She I believe is refering to the Schism in the Catholic Church. Their was only one pope though. Their were two others claiming to be pope. They were not ;however, they were anti-popes. Their was a German anti-pope, a French anti-pope, and the pope. Well let me explain it now. Back a long time ago the pope and the king of France were good buddies. Italy was in turmoil. It was changing hands almost everyday, so the pope packed his bags and moved to Avignon, France. Well after a while the pope died and another came to the office. He tried to move back to Rome, but the French did not allow him. So he died form old age. Well for the next 67 years the papacy resided in Avignon. Then in 1378 A.D. Pope Gregory XI died while visiting Rome. The Cardinals then picked a new pope in Rome and he was Pope Urban VI. He moved the papacy back to Rome. Well the French got upset. So the French cardinals got together and elected Antipope Clement VII and claimed that he was Pope and he was in Avignon. Well over the years another anti-pope was elected in the Holy Roman Empire. So now there was three people claiming to be pope. So finnally the Holy Roman Emperor got together all three parties and they all agreed to resign in the Council of Constance and elect a new pope. He was Pope Martin V. Thus the Great Schism ended in 1417 A.D. God speed.
 
Vigis said:
She I believe is refering to the Schism in the Catholic Church. Their was only one pope though. Their were two others claiming to be pope. They were not ;however, they were anti-popes. Their was a German anti-pope, a French anti-pope, and the pope. Well let me explain it now. Back a long time ago the pope and the king of France were good buddies. Italy was in turmoil. It was changing hands almost everyday, so the pope packed his bags and moved to Avignon, France. Well after a while the pope died and another came to the office. He tried to move back to Rome, but the French did not allow him. So he died form old age. Well for the next 67 years the papacy resided in Avignon. Then in 1378 A.D. Pope Gregory XI died while visiting Rome. The Cardinals then picked a new pope in Rome and he was Pope Urban VI. He moved the papacy back to Rome. Well the French got upset. So the French cardinals got together and elected Antipope Clement VII and claimed that he was Pope and he was in Avignon. Well over the years another anti-pope was elected in the Holy Roman Empire. So now there was three people claiming to be pope. So finnally the Holy Roman Emperor got together all three parties and they all agreed to resign in the Council of Constance and elect a new pope. He was Pope Martin V. Thus the Great Schism ended in 1417 A.D. God speed.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting these details?
Anyone with any history background would know this to be an inaccurate assesment. I hope Contarini ways in on this subject.
 
were the antipopes bad or just not the real pope? Did they do anything wrong? Were they bad people?
 
There were not 3 Popes there were; one Pope and 2 anti-Popes. The anti-Popes are people who claim to be Pope. As for whether the anti-Popes were bad, the answer is both yes and no some probably were bad and others probably were not.

Here is a reasonable quick summary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
 
myfavoritmartin said:
They all were properly elected. So all were the real pope.
Click to expand...
Poppycock.

It is not canonically possible for there to be three popes at the same time. There was one true pope and two who claimed to be pope.

Consider, please:

"Inquirers sometimes ask, “Have there not been for periods of history two or three popes or claimants to the papacy at the same time, as, for instance, during the great Western Schism from 1378 to 1417? Can we be sure that the right pope emerged after the trouble?” Yes, there were several claimants to the papacy at the same time, but only one pope. (There can be several claimants to the American presidency at once, but only one president at a time.)

"All Catholics knew there could be only one pope. The question was which of the claimants was the true pope. News traveled slowly in those days. National groups confused the issue by indulging in propaganda for their own candidate. There was confusion and scandal, but the succession from Peter was never broken.

"Because of civil wars in Italy, in 1309 Clement V moved to Avignon in the south of France. The next five popes were French; they lived at Avignon, but they were, of course, bishops of Rome. Pope Gregory XI died in 1378, and the conclave met in Rome to choose his successor. Urban VI, an Italian archbishop, was chosen. Thirteen French cardinals then said the wish of the Roman people to have an Italian pope had influenced the conclave in its choice, so they chose Cardinal Robert, of Geneva, as Clement VII. The Roman cardinals naturally declared this election schismatical, but the rival lines went on for nearly forty years side by side.

"Clement VII was an anti-pope (a false claimant to the papacy) from 1378 to 1394. Anti-pope Benedict XIII succeeded him, and France, Lorraine, Scotland (France’s ally), Naples, and Spain declared for Benedict and regarded him as being legitimately chosen. Other countries stood by Urban VI. The confusion was increased when a local council of bishops at Pisa tried to heal the schism in 1409, but only succeeded in producing yet another anti-pope, Alexander V, who lasted for a year and was followed by John XXIII (1410-1415), who is not to be confused with the authentic Pope John XXIII, who reigned from 1958 to 1963. The solution finally came when the anti-pope John XXIII resigned, Benedict XIII was deposed, and Gregory XII, Uban’s third successor, laid down his office for the sake of peace. The Council of Constance then cleared the way for Martin V’s election.

"The Western Schism is an indication of the power of Christ in his Church. No merely human institution could have survived such a test of its unity. The foundation of that unity is Peter’s authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Unity survived; its foundation survived.

"Doubt about who was the rightful pope during the years of schism does not affect the position of later popes. The papacy is not handed on by one bishop of Rome to another through the laying on of hands, any more than the British prime minister hands on his office to another. As a pope does not receive his office from his predecessor, the identity of that predecessor does not really concern him. A man is pope because the Church recognizes him as bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

“Once universal agreement was reached after the Western Schism as to whom the Church recognized as bishop of Rome, that person’s position as pope was clear. Who his predecessors were during the period of doubts is of no importance. His position depended on the permanence of the See of Rome, not on the identity of its bishops.”

from catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp
 
Kendy said:
Well, it seems to me if they were properly elected how could they just be deposed?
Click to expand...
They weren’t properly elected because the position of pope was not open. If you are already married you can “properly marry” another person according to outward appearances, but the marriage is not valid because you were never “available” to be married. If there is a living Bishop of Rome, it is quite impossible to select another, even if all the outward steps are taken to do so.
 
Kendy,
I’ve ready lightly about this part of history, but I find when talking with others who bring up the “3 popes” excuse, it is helpful for all who are listening to put it in modern times.

For example, simply point out that America had it’s only little fight over who was really the president. Remember? Bush won the elected and was sworn in as president. But another candidate cried foul the whole time, and some media sources even reported the other candidate as being president.

Most people remember/know about this little fight to be the president, so it is helpful to link it to what went on with 3 popes.
 
There is more than one person who claims to be the Pope right now, that doesn’t mean that they are.

Here is one right now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden

There are a bunch of people who can claim to be Pope, there can only be one real Pope.

This is just like the other “Apostolic Churches” you see pop up, just look in the yellow pages and you will see them.

I can claim to be a real pastor and start up my own church, that doesn’t make it a valid Church that Jesus founded but a man-made institution.

So regardless of the number of Popes, this situation was corrected and one Pope was confirmed as the Pope of the Church Jesus founded.
Gates of Hell wont prevail no matter how much we try and mess it up.

In Christ
Scylla
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Read history books outside the walls of newadvent/scripturecatholic, and find yourself corrected.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Okay, how about this: I am an historian. I’ve read widely, and very little of it is inside “the walls of newadvent/scripturecatholic,” and I definitively say that neither you nor Edward Gibbon know what you’re talking about. The anti-popes’ elections were not valid.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Kendy said:
At a party, a group of dissenting catholics got to criticizing the church and one lady said there have not been an unbroken line of popes. She said there was once three popes.

I knew these people were wrong (well, because I have faith in the church and I know these dissenters will say anythingt to undermine her), but I didn’t really know what they were talking about.

Has anyone heard of this? What does it refer to? Any good reading materials to help me deal with these types of thing?

Kendy
Click to expand...
I suggest reading “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” by J.N.D. Kelly if you can find it. (I obtained it from my local library.) It’s written by a protestant (Anglican Priest) and is a suprisingly unbiased account for someone coming from a tradition that rejects the Popes. It is a scholarly work in every respect. Not only does it clearly show the unbroken succession of the Popes from Peter to JPII, it deals practically and fairly with those less than admirable examples throughout papal history such as the known immoral popes and the Schism. I found it invaluable when dealing with my uncle’s accusations against the papacy.

As far as the schism goes and there being 3 popes at once, it is correct to say that there were 3 men who were simultaneously elected as pope and calling themselves pope and with people who supported their papacy. However, it is important to remember that being pope is more than being declared so by a bunch of aging cardinals. It is more than the man who is called pope. The Papacy is a God given position of authority in the Church which is protected by God from falling into error. It is not something that man does, but rather something that God does. And God will not cause there to be more than one valid Pope. Only one of those Popes, in the time that three where claiming the position, really had the authority from God.
 
Verita said:
As far as the schism goes and there being 3 popes at once, it is correct to say that there were 3 men who were simultaneously elected as pope and calling themselves pope and with people who supported their papacy. However, it is important to remember that being pope is more than being declared so by a bunch of aging cardinals. It is more than the man who is called pope. The Papacy is a God given position of authority in the Church which is protected by God from falling into error. It is not something that man does, but rather something that God does. And God will not cause there to be more than one valid Pope. Only one of those Popes, in the time that three where claiming the position, really had the authority from God.
Click to expand...
The whole idea of a “valid” pope is absurd if:
  1. The church founded by Jesus was never intended to have an earthly “vicar of Christ” as though Christ were absent or unavailable to every Christian merely because Christ is not physically present as He once was.
  2. There is no way for the common people to discern which so-called “pope” is the real one. If, during the 15th century, for example, news spread slowly, and for a number of other reasons it was not possible for most people to discern which claimant was the genuine pope, then it sounds like a mockery of God when you say, “It is not something that man does, but rather something that God does. And God will not cause there to be more than one valid Pope.”
It hardly matters that God chooses the one true pope if no one can discern which one is chosen by God any more than it could matter which so- called “church” is the true church if no one can discern which one is instituted by God.

In my view, God is very capable (and willing) to make His will known to those to whom He intends to make His will known.
 
Nick_Jones said:
The whole idea of a “valid” pope is absurd if:
  1. The church founded by Jesus was never intended to have an earthly “vicar of Christ” as though Christ were absent or unavailable to every Christian merely because Christ is not physically present as He once was.
  2. There is no way for the common people to discern which so-called “pope” is the real one. If, during the 15th century, for example, news spread slowly, and for a number of other reasons it was not possible for most people to discern which claimant was the genuine pope, then it sounds like a mockery of God when you say, “It is not something that man does, but rather something that God does. And God will not cause there to be more than one valid Pope.”
NIck:

It hardly matters that God chooses the one true pope if no one can discern which one is chosen by God any more than it could matter which so- called “church” is the true church if no one can discern which one is instituted by God.

In my view, God is very capable (and willing) to make His will known to those to whom He intends to make His will known.
Click to expand...
Show me where, and I know you can’t. that our Lord chose, other than Peter, who should lead his Church. First, if the Church of CHrist would never have indended to have an earthly vicar of Christ,. …why did Jesus say to Peter what he did?

Obviousley you do not want to hear this,…but his church would prevail against the gates of hell!!! ???

Is the gates of hell protetesitism?

Yes, God can do everything. Is it reasonably to imagine that he could on his own will divide his church? And this includes both Orthodox and Protestants,…and other cults?
 
mlchance said:
:rolleyes:

Okay, how about this: I am an historian. I’ve read widely, and very little of it is inside “the walls of newadvent/scripturecatholic,” and I definitively say that neither you nor Edward Gibbon know what you’re talking about. The anti-popes’ elections were not valid.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
You are a historian?
Share some work of yours?
Are you a Dr of theology?

You prove one point I listed in the above facts that is incorrect.
 
Wildkit said:
I have read many history books and they all discribe that which has been attested to. Which book(s) would you recommend?
Click to expand...
The Three Popes: An Account of the Great Schism, Marzieh Gail;
The Great Schism: 1378, by John Holland Smith
The Origins of the Great Schism: A study in fourteenth century ecclesiastical history, by Walter Ullmann.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Read history books outside the walls of newadvent/scripturecatholic, and find yourself corrected.
Click to expand...
Not wanting to be disrespectful to you in any way. But IMHO since you are not Catholic and strongly hold to Protestant beliefs you might be a little skewed in your take on “history”.
 
Please read the public profiles to see if there might me some conflict with Holy Mother Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top