WTF? Pope about to resign?!

[MrFun]

Oh my god. You're so ****ing retarded.

I would like you to explain how a group of very conservative people would force their equally conservative absolute monarch to do something that hasn't been done in many centuries.

I'm sorry you take everything I post, seriously.

I don't honestly believe that he was forced to resign.

[MrFun]

There is only one cardinal younger than 65, if the news is to be believed.

I guess they could elect a non-cardinal....

[kentonio]

Well if Al doesn't make the marines this time, he might have time on his hands.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about when the same college of cardinals elects two popes?

Pope Urban VI was validly elected by the college of Cardinals April 8th 1378, replacing Pope Gregory XI. There was no opposition to his election among the College of Cardinals.

Pope Boniface IX was validly elected in the conclave of 1389 to replace Urban VI. Innocent VII was validly elected and consecrated by the College of Cardinals in 1404. The 1406 conclave then elected Gregory XII. Martin was then elected by the Council of Constance.

At no time were 2 popes elected, and at no time was there more than one.

not obviate the reality that you had major elements of the church aligned

It's called Schism, MtG. They did vote for Urban VI, and thus were bound to accept his authority. That they refused to obey Urban VI and split themselves off in no way renders Urban VI's election illegitimate. Nor does it render other appointees as legitimate. The line is clear, and no, it's not 'cobbled together after the fact'. Quite the opposite. The facts are clear.

[BlackCat]

Will he still be known as Benedict or will he now be Ratzinger again?

Eggs Benedict maybe

[kentonio]

[BlackCat]

You have a special clock. It's 24 hour, with a day and month display, so you only get to be accidentally right once a year. See you next year.

You forgot that it also shows weekday, so it's even rarer

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not so. Urban VI was validly elected and consecrated. Ergo, Urban VI was Pope until he died, and his successor was subsequently elected.

If this were after the fact, then why did Catherine of Siena confirm that he was?

Was Catherine a member of the College of Cardinals? Then I guess she must have taken someone else's word for it.

So was Clement VII. If not, why was he recognized by Aragon, Burgundy, Castile and Leon, Cypress, France, Naples, Savoy and Scotland?

Subsequent Roman popes declaring Urban VI "legitimate" is like kids adjudging the validity of their parent's marriage. Unless you conveniently legitimize Urban VI and his successors, you delegitimize every subsequent pope and the cardinals they elevated. Nice incentive for the winners to re-write history.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Eggs Benedict maybe

But Eggs Benedict are good.

[Ben Kenobi]

Was Catherine a member of the College of Cardinals?

Again, the conclave that elected Urban VI did so without a single cardinal in opposition. Catherine's support for Urban indicates that yes - he was known to be the Pope at that time, and demonstrates that your claim is rubbish.

As for Clement, when did his election occur? Was it before or after Urban?

Urban was already Pope. Did Urban die? No. Did Urban resign? No.

Subsequent Roman popes declaring Urban VI "legitimate"

He always was legitimate. Look at the date of his conclave election. He was elected as the legitimate successor to Gregory XII. In Rome. Unanimously. If Clement was the real pope, why was Urban elected first?

You claimed that two popes were elected at the same time. This is false. Urban was elected by the conclave. Not Clement.

Nice incentive for the winners to re-write history.

What was rewritten? The fact that Urban VI was legitimately elected first by the conclave? Or did France attempt to rewrite history to eliminate this inconvenient fact and fail?

[MichaeltheGreat]

At the time, it was not settled church doctrine that the college of cardinals could not figure out that perhaps their earlier voting wasn't quite so inspired by God as they'd been bribed to believe. How the **** do you think people like Rodrigo Borgia got elected? This "inspired by God" nonsense didn't exist then. It was all bribery, blackmail, cajoling, manipulation. The particular pronouncement that the College of Cardinals (or a majority of it in council) couldn't change their mind and start over wasn't made until 1460 or so by Pius II, another corrupt, whoring, father-of-bastards type who manipulated himself into the papacy. So yes, it was a re-write after the fact by the Roman line, sorry to burst your bubble.

Feel free to babble on some absolutist nonsense now.

Oh, and if it was soooo straightforward as you claim, why is it that the two Pisan popes (the proverbial third wheels in the whole sordid affair) weren't removed from the Church's official listing of popes until the early 20th century?

[Hauldren Collider]

Why are you arguing with Ben about his religion? Do you actually care at all?

[Ben Kenobi]

perhaps their earlier voting wasn't quite so inspired by God

Then you concede Urban VI was elected the Pope. Legitimately. Given that, this means that the entire Roman line *is* the legitimate line.

[Guynemer]

Why are you arguing with Ben about his religion? Do you actually care at all?

As an alternative explanation, Mike could just hate himself.

[regexcellent]

It's like driving your truck into a concrete wall, then rearing it up and driving back at it until the thing won't drive anymore, then getting out and smashing your head against it until you pass out.