WTF? Pope about to resign?!

[The Mad Monk]

Samuel L. Jackson.

[Ben Kenobi]

That was nearly 40 years later.

Yes, and? It confirms that there was an unbroken line.

How about Fondi? 135 km south of Rome, in Italy? Urban VI decided not to go there when summoned by the conclave of cardinals who decided to elect a new pope, because he would have been arrested.

Umm, probably because he was already Pope.

The fact that various factions had various nobles and princes and such acting as their henchmen in different areas doesn't really lend any legitimacy to anyone.

The fact that the same Cardinals who eventually preferred Clement voted to elect Urban first does declare Urban to be the legitimate pope.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, and? It confirms that there was an unbroken line.

There's always an "unbroken line" no matter who gets elected or how.

Umm, probably because he was already Pope.

He was going to become unpoped. Something about getting votes through mob intimidation.

The fact that the same Cardinals who eventually preferred Clement voted to elect Urban first does declare Urban to be the legitimate pope.

And they stated they were coerced by the mob in Rome to elect an Italian.

[Ben Kenobi]

You mean the way it's been already demonstrated that South Carolina's secession was illegitimate? Or that Texas, when it came low-crawling on its belly back to the union, waived any future right to secede. It's been "demonstrated" by the winners going back and ruling after the fact on the results they favored.

The historical fact is that he was elected by the conclave unanimously. Ergo, he was the legitimate pope, and no, it wasn't rewritten. These are all historical facts. Why do you persist in dabbling in fiction?

The official history as promulgated by Urban's line of successors does.

You deny he was elected first and unanimously by the college of Cardinals?

Only excommunication removes their authority.

No, Schism removes them from the body until they have reconciled.

Really now? And what ecclesiatical order or doctrine, as it was in effect in 1379, so held?

Why weren't the Eastern bishops voting in the conclave?

BTW, the Church and Pope Gregory XII disagreed with you.

No, they didn't.

They had no problem burning Jan Hus at the stake even though Hus had been excommunicated by the Pisan pope Alexander V and imprisoned by order of Pisan pope John XXIII, who also directed a committee of three bishops to investigate charges of heresy. Hus was tried and executed/murdered by authority of Gregory XII who apparently saw no defect or lack of authority by Alexander V or John XXIII in their excommunication and arrest.

Hus was excommed by the Council of Clermont.

The term "anti-pope" ring a bell? The revisionist history paints the "anti-popes" as heretics, blah blah blah. Last I checked, heretics != good.

Again, there's no such thing as an 'anti-pope'. The only people calling them 'anti-popes', are their supporters. You believe their supporters to be revisionists? Odd method of undercutting your own argument.

The execution/murder of Hus and getting their asses kicked repeatedly in the Hussite crusades didn't exactly do much for advancement of anything other than the Protestan reformation.

Obviously because only protestants were motivated by sincere desire to serve God. Or, as I'm sure you believe, only those who oppose the Pope are motivated by sincere desire to serve God. This isn't about the Pope, or even about Hus, but about you. You refuse to acknowledge that obedience to God (and yes, the Pope), is a virtue.

They had peasants provide the labor, and they extracted lands and money by ecclesiatical taxation and bribery, er, um, "gifts", once they figured out which factions to align with to give them the necessary muscle. I'm not talking about some random monastery. I'm talking about the vast land holdings and taxing power of the church.

So am I. Again, for the most part, they built it and bought it over time. We're talking timescales of 500 or more years here.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's always an "unbroken line" no matter who gets elected or how.

And the office was already filled. Urban came first.

He was going to become unpoped. Something about getting votes through mob intimidation.

And, how did that work out for those cardinals? Urban stayed the Pope.

And they stated they were coerced by the mob in Rome to elect an Italian.

Still counts. Or are you saying they *weren't* coerced by France. You, yourself admitted that the process wasn't a free election. So, if neither vote was free, Urban was first, and therefore, legitimately elected Pope.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only people calling them 'anti-popes', are their supporters.

Why would you call your own Pope an "Anti-Pope"?!

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you call your own Pope an "Anti-Pope"?!

Again, there's no such thing as an 'anti-pope'. The only people who label them as such are their supporters. The Catholic church doesn't even recognize their consecration, ergo they are simply Cardinals who were never elevated.

The reason their supporters call them this is because it perpetuates the fiction that their consecrations were valid, just not recognized by the 'official' church. Which is why dissenters like MtG have such a hardon for them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, there's no such thing as an 'anti-pope'. The only people who label them as such are their supporters.

And the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

and Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/28501/antipope

Do you enjoy being so wrong?

[MRT144]

Personally I disagree. I would love to have him Pope however long God intends. But, it is his decision. He shall be missed.

How do we know this is not what god intended as the pope is the final arbiter of god's will on earth.

[Felch]

I always thought "anti-pope" had a strongly negative connotation. Far from "perpetuat[ing] the fiction that their consecrations were valid," it reminds me of something clearly evil like "Antichrist."

[Hauldren Collider]

Anti pope makes me think of matter-antimatter annihilation and then I giggle like a nerdy moron.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I always thought "anti-pope" had a strongly negative connotation. Far from "perpetuat[ing] the fiction that their consecrations were valid," it reminds me of something clearly evil like "Antichrist."

Exactly. They are supposed to be negative.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do we know this is not what god intended as the pope is the final arbiter of god's will on earth.

Given as I had no clue before today that he intended to resign, I don't know. I don't know squat.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

As this is my field, I'm entitled to disagree with the historical assessment of others. I see no justification in the term anti-pope. We should call people by what they were, they were cardinals. Nobody questions they were cardinals.

[MichaeltheGreat]

red goating, strawgoat, munched under a bridge.

You deny he was elected first and unanimously by the college of Cardinals?

He was elected by a conclave of cardinals. So was the Avignon pope, So was the Pisan pope,

No, Schism removes them from the body until they have reconciled.

Apparently your convert view on Canonical law was formed by that bumper stucker that says something to the effect "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever" and you take that to mean Canonical law is also immutable. You don't have a schism unless there is an intent to separate from the head of the Church. There was no intent to separate, there was a dispute as to who was the proper head of the Church.

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did. They never nullified hundreds of lesser appointments and various acts of the Pisan popes, or of many of the cardinals who elected Avignon and Pisan popes. According to the Benonical law, those people had no authority once they committed what you deem to be schismatic acts. The execution of Jan Hus was an extrajudicial murder outside the scope of canonical law unless the prior acts of the Pisan popes were considered valid.

Hus was excommed by the Council of Clermont.

Really? Clever chaps, to know to excommunicate someone over two centuries before they're even born.

Again, there's no such thing as an 'anti-pope'. The only people calling them 'anti-popes', are their supporters. You believe their supporters to be revisionists? Odd method of undercutting your own argument.

Oh really? We have Dr. Ben the gynecologist, the authority on Canonical law and Church history, and now the editor-in-chief of the Oxford English Disctionary, and still living under a bridge feasting on goats. Never knew you were so multi-talented. BYW, the term is widely and generally used. Your broken day-date-weekday clock hasn't come around again yet.

Obviously because only protestants were motivated by sincere desire to serve God. Or, as I'm sure you believe, only those who oppose the Pope are motivated by sincere desire to serve God. This isn't about the Pope, or even about Hus, but about you. You refuse to acknowledge that obedience to God (and yes, the Pope), is a virtue.

Now you're comedic.

So am I. Again, for the most part, they built it and bought it over time. We're talking timescales of 500 or more years here.

I guess it takes a while to extort funds out of the peasantry for annointing of the sick and last rites, and to tax the nobles.