Was one of the "three Popes" actually Pope? (SPECULATION only)

[DavidFilmer]

NOTE - this is a discussion about purely theological speculation. No doctrine is being discussed here, and my question has no conclusive answer, but I would just like to talk about it among people who share a similar theological and historic interest, who like to bounce ideas off of each other.

I have read, and have referred to myself, an episode in Church history where three people claimed to be Pope, and there was no clear indication of who was “really” the Pope. The specifics of this episode are not part of this topic or this question, and they are irrelevant to this discussion. That’s why I’m not describing the episode in any way (I’m not naming names, or when it happened), other than to say that three guys once claimed to be Pope, and there was controversy about who was “really” the Pope. This historic factoid alone is submitted into evidence for the jury (ie, you) to consider.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that one of these three guys was “really” the Pope, but we just cannot say for sure which one. These discussions tend to focus on the validity of the claim to the Office. But, since there is no doctrinally defined standard by which to judge the validity of a claim, such discussions cannot ever be conclusive (which is readily admitted by the historians and theologians who study such events - everybody knows that we will never know).

But I challenge the premise of these discussions: Was one of these guys actually Pope? Just because three guys claim to be Pope (with a claim that has some merit) does not mean that one of them actually is (or does it?)

I have come to believe that none were actually the Pope (so the Church was actually sede vacante (empty Chair - no Pope) during this period). You couldn’t swing a cat without hitting a claimant, but there was no actual Pope.

The reason I have come to believe this is quite simple. Popes have been designated in many ways throughout history. Some may have been appointed by their predecessors. Some were appointed by emperors. Some were elected in a popular election. Some were put into office by wealthy and powerful Roman families. Most have been elected by a conclave of Bishops.

So the method of his election is irrelevant - the ONLY thing that makes him Pope is that he is generally recognized as the Bishop of Rome by the Catholic Church. Hypothetically, if a Pope dies, and another Bishop calls a press conference and declares himself the Bishop of Rome, and the Church accepts it, he is the Pope - right?

In the case of the “three Popes,” none were generally recognized (that’s why there was controversy in the first place). Hence, none of the three were actually Pope (and, thus, we had no Pope during this controversy).

Whadda ya think?

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Well… You are a deep thinker aren’t you…
I could give an uneducated response… but that is not what you need…

 

[Nita]

NOTE - this is a discussion about purely theological speculation. No doctrine is being discussed here, and my question has no conclusive answer, but I would just like to talk about it among people who share a similar theological and historic interest, who like to bounce ideas off of each other.

The reason I have come to believe this is quite simple. Popes have been designated in many ways throughout history. Some may have been appointed by their predecessors. Some were appointed by emperors. Some were elected in a popular election. Some were put into office by wealthy and powerful Roman families. Most have been elected by a conclave of Bishops.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that one of these three guys was “really” the Pope, but we just cannot say for sure which one. These discussions tend to focus on the validity of the claim to the Office. But, since there is no doctrinally defined standard by which to judge the validity of a claim, such discussions cannot ever be conclusive (which is readily admitted by the historians and theologians who study such events - everybody knows that we will never know).

Regulations don’t have to be doctrinal in order to be necessary for them to have binding force. Jesus said “**whatever **you bind…”

So the method of his election is irrelevant -

I don’t think “the method of his election is irrelevant” at all. I think just the opposite – that the method would be the determining factor as to who is truly Pope. The real Pope would be the one who was elected according to the Church’s “method” regulation that was in force at the time.

Since I’m not up on the history of how the 3 were chosen, nor do I know the Church method that was in force at the time, I really can’t even speculate as to whether one of the three might have been a valid Pope or not.

the ONLY thing that makes him Pope is that he is generally recognized as the Bishop of Rome by the Catholic Church.

What do you mean by “generally recognized”. To my knowledge it’s never been acceptable that a Pope can be self-appointed, and then just hope that everyone accepts his claim to Peter’s seat. He has to be “chosen” - and chosen according to the accepted method at the time.

Hypothetically, if a Pope dies, and another Bishop calls a press conference and declares himself the Bishop of Rome, and the Church accepts it, he is the Pope - right?

Only if that is what the regulation in force at the time said was the procedure to be followed for the method of choosing the Pope. As I said above, Popes are not self-appointed, they are chosen.

 

[aemcpa]

If two, or three, or ten, or 100 men stood up today and asserted papal claims, and if each of the false claimants somehow gained equal “market share”, would that somehow nullify Francis’ valid papacy?

 

[BlaconPaul]

Did one of these three potential Bishops of Rome have the ring?

 

[padrepio_2012]

Except there’s a problem with your theory or whatever : three men WERE generally recognized and accepted to be the Bishop of Rome, whether they 'were put there for selfish and ambitious reasons or out of piety and prayerful consideration. So which is the real ? deal? And popes are not chosen by people generally agreeing that this guy would b a great Pope. There are requirements. You have to b a priest and ordained a bishop. You must b male. That really narrows it down. Additionally, the bishops of the church must agree on the candidate. Even in ancient times they did this and during the middle ages.

 

[TomD123]

Throughout Church history we have had different methods of selecting the Pope. Whichever method the Church has declared as the proper/lawful method of selecting the Pope is the proper and lawful method. So for example, if the Pope is to be selected by the Cardinals as he is now, then it follows that whoever the Cardinals select (in the manner as set out by the laws of the Church) is in fact the Pope.

This is true of any time in the Church. It is not popular recognition of a person as Pope that makes them pope but proper election according to Church law.

At the time of 3 popes, there might be no valid pope or there might be one. If none were elected according to the laws of the Church at the time, none were valid and the Church would be in a period of sede vecante until the proper selection process was followed and a new pope was selected lawfully. ON the other hand, if a pope was selected properly who was one of the three (or even if he was someone else more obscure and not generally recognized as the pope) then this man would be the true Pope.

Incidentally, from what I know in history (which could be wrong because I haven’t looked at this lately) there was a Pope elected by the Cardinals. This man was the true Pope and when some of the Cardinals claimed he was not, they essentially became schismatics. The Church considers the validly elected men the true Popes and the others to be anti-popes.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If two, or three, or ten, or 100 men stood up today and asserted papal claims, and if each of the false claimants somehow gained equal “market share”, would that somehow nullify Francis’ valid papacy?

There are people out there who claim to be the “real” Pope (there’s a guy in Louisiana that wears a Papal tiara and everything). Few take them seriously, and even if people started taking this guy seriously, he cannot nullify or threaten Francis’ reign (no Pope can be deposed). But, if Francis died or retired, and this guy was somehow recognized by the Church as the Bishop of Rome, I suppose he would become what he imagines himself to be.

 

[aemcpa]

There are people out there who claim to be the “real” Pope (there’s a guy in Louisiana that wears a Papal tiara and everything). Few take them seriously, and even if people started taking this guy seriously, he cannot nullify or threaten Francis’ reign (no Pope can be deposed). But, if Francis died or retired, and this guy was somehow recognized by the Church as the Bishop of Rome, I suppose he would become what he imagines himself to be.

Say that 90 of the Cardinal-electors decided that they just flat out picked the wrong guy, that Francis is just too far out there with all the kissing babies and walking into the ghetto and loving gay people, and they all decided to meet in New York City and hold another election, where they elected Cardinal Scola. Only 25 of the electors remained loyal to Francis; the other 90 proclaimed Scola as Gregory XVII and made public acts of obedience to him. Who’s the Pope? Clearly Francis.

Now, say Francis dies, while Scola still lives. The Cardinals are duly summoned to Rome, and only the 25 show up. The 25 elect Cardinal Dolan, who assumes the papacy as Urban IX. A year later, Scola dies, and the 90 elect Cardinal Schoenborn, who calls himself John XXIV. Who’s the Pope now?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Say that 90 of the Cardinal-electors decided that they just flat out picked the wrong guy, that Francis is just too far out there with all the kissing babies and walking into the ghetto and loving gay people, and they all decided to meet in New York City and hold another election, where they elected Cardinal Scola. Only 25 of the electors remained loyal to Francis; the other 90 proclaimed Scola as Gregory XVII and made public acts of obedience to him. Who’s the Pope? Clearly Francis.

And now imagine in addition that the 90 hypothetical Cardinal-electors claimed that they chose the current pope out of coercion. This is basically how the Great Schism began, and why it was so hard for any consensus to be reached as to who was canonically the true pope, because the account given by the French Cardinals was entirely plausible, and if true, would have meant that Clement VII was the legitimate pope.

Now, say Francis dies, while Scola still lives. The Cardinals are duly summoned to Rome, and only the 25 show up. The 25 elect Cardinal Dolan, who assumes the papacy as Urban IX. A year later, Scola dies, and the 90 elect Cardinal Schoenborn, who calls himself John XXIV. Who’s the Pope now?

And then imagine if on top of that, a group of bishops gets sick of the schism, holds a council (let’s say, the Synod of Houston-Galveston, since Texas is awesome), declares both papacies to be invalid, and elects their own Pope, who will be named Alexander IX. It’s a sticky, headache-inducing situation, I’d say.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have come to believe that none were actually the Pope (so the Church was actually sede vacante (empty Chair - no Pope) during this period). You couldn’t swing a cat without hitting a claimant, but there was no actual Pope.

In the opinion of some medieval canonists, this was entirely plausible, because in their opinion, a doubtful pope is no pope. But at the same time, this would undermine the validity of the General Council which resolved the situation with three popes, because in the opinion of the same medieval canonists, a General Council needed to be convened by the pope.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t think “the method of his election is irrelevant” at all. I think just the opposite – that the method would be the determining factor as to who is truly Pope. The real Pope would be the one who was elected according to the Church’s “method” regulation that was in force at the time.

I believe I mentioned that many Popes were appointed by Roman emperors. This is not a “Church method,” yet we recognize these men as “Pope” today because they were recognized as such by the Church in their day.

The Office of Peter has been bought and sold by powerful and influential Roman families (mainly the de Medicis), which resulted in the shameful sixty year period known as the Saeculum Obscurum (the rule of harlots) spanning the reign of sixteen consecutive sinful and unworthy Popes.

But these were Popes. They were not appointed by any Church-approved process. But they were Popes, because they were (and still are) recognized as the Bishop of Rome by the Catholic Church.

 

[Nita]

I believe I mentioned that many Popes were appointed by Roman emperors. This is not a “Church method,” yet we recognize these men as “Pope” today because they were recognized as such by the Church in their day.

I would say that if the Church accepted and did not reject those appointments then that means the Church accepted that method of appointing the successor to Peter; it was the Church’s accepted/approved method at that period in time. The “Church method” is the method the Church chooses to accept as a method.

The Office of Peter has been bought and sold by powerful and influential Roman families (mainly the de Medicis), which resulted in the shameful sixty year period known as the Saeculum Obscurum (the rule of harlots) spanning the reign of sixteen consecutive sinful and unworthy Popes.

But these were Popes. They were not appointed by any Church-approved process. But they were Popes, because they were (and still are) recognized as the Bishop of Rome by the Catholic Church.

I agree with you the bribery is shameful - and disgusting. But it wasn’t the bribers who had the power to choose the Pope but rather the person or persons who wanted/received the money. So, just like above, if the appointment made by that person or persons was accepted and not rejected by the other bishops of the Church, then it must have been an accepted Church method at that time.

 

[DavidFilmer]

if the appointment made by that person or persons was accepted and not rejected by the other bishops of the Church, then it must have been an accepted Church method at that time.

That’s my point. After our beloved Holy Father Francis dies, if someone jumps up and proclaims himself Pope, and the Church accepts the claim, then he IS the Pope. If a giant lottery is held and the winner is to be Pope (assuming he is a Baptized Catholic adult male), and the Church accepts that, then that guy is Pope (he would probably need to be ordained Bishop first).

The Pope is the guy that the Church accepts as the Bishop of Rome. How he got there is completely irrelevant.

In the case of the “three Popes,” none were accepted by the Church (meaning the majority of Bishops; the place of the Faithful is not so clearly defined). If a few Bishops dissent (and a few Bishops ALWAYS dissent - no Pope has been said to have been elected by unanimous vote), it does not matter.

 

[njlisa]

Here’s the real skinny on how the Pope has to be elected these days.

Norms on the election of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[Nita]

That’s my point. After our beloved Holy Father Francis dies, if someone jumps up and proclaims himself Pope, and the Church accepts the claim, then he IS the Pope. If a giant lottery is held and the winner is to be Pope (assuming he is a Baptized Catholic adult male), and the Church accepts that, then that guy is Pope (he would probably need to be ordained Bishop first).

The Pope is the guy that the Church accepts as the Bishop of Rome. How he got there is completely irrelevant.

In the case of the “three Popes,” none were accepted by the Church (meaning the majority of Bishops; the place of the Faithful is not so clearly defined). If a few Bishops dissent (and a few Bishops ALWAYS dissent - no Pope has been said to have been elected by unanimous vote), it does not matter.

Are you really as concerned about it as you sound? Don’t you trust God to be in control – that nothing will happen outside His will?

Methods accepted years ago probably reflected the circumstances and limitations existing at the time. I don’t know all the history, but it could well be that when St. Peter died the local Church chose someone to replace him. It was a time of persecution, no phones, no plains, trains, cars, … I doubt there were any “official” Church regulations specifying a method to choose his successor. I don’t even know when the Church first established regulations for that purpose. But, they do exist now.

 

[aemcpa]

In the case of the “three Popes,” none were accepted by the Church (meaning the majority of Bishops; the place of the Faithful is not so clearly defined). If a few Bishops dissent (and a few Bishops ALWAYS dissent - no Pope has been said to have been elected by unanimous vote), it does not matter.

In your opinion, who was the last valid Pope before Martin V?

 

[Nita]

Here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Papal Election. Very interesting. Another proof for me that God is in control no matter the circumstances and the storms His Church/boat has to weather and navigate through.
newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

 

[DavidFilmer]

In your opinion, who was the last valid Pope before Martin V?

That’s a good question (I would say Innocent-7, but that’s only my opinion).

But it is not a question that is relevant to my original post. If you wish to discuss that question, feel free to open your own thread (I will be happy to participate, as I feel it is really an interesting question). But it is off-topic in this discussion.

[please don’t use Roman Ordinal numbers for Popes. It’s a stupid appeal to antiquity which is easily confused - such as confusing Alexander IV (-4), a scoundrel, with Alexander VI (-6), a Saint) Please join me in abolishing this stupid practice, at least on this Forum].

 

[DavidFilmer]

Are you really as concerned about it as you sound? Don’t you trust God to be in control – that nothing will happen outside His will?

NO! I am not concerned AT ALL. If I SOUND concerned, then you misunderstand me. Did you fail to read my post? Did you fail to read in the subject line that this is theological SPECULATION ONLY?

This is SPECULATION. There is NO DOCTRINE being discussed in this thread.

I really wish that CAF had a dedicated forum for theological speculation and discussion.

Alas.