DBWI: Pope vs. antiPope

Ok, so I've gotten a little more into my Catholic roots lately, because I have taken a class in Catholic Heritage. But, being a Catholic, that means I have to make that decision; which is the Pope and which is the anti-Pope? My parents think that the real Pope is the one in Rome, but I've been reading up on History, and I don't think that's the case. I read that during Italian Unification, the Italian government evicted the French soldiers defending Vatican City. The Pope was killed in shady circumstances, and many Bishops left with the French soldiers. The Pope in Rome was basically set up as a puppet Pope by the Italian government, justified by the few Bishops that failed to flee Rome. It's the Mexico City Pope, Pope Innocent XIV, that is the legitimate follower of Pope Pius IX. That is where the majority of the Bishops fled after the 'Sack of Vatican City'. I know the Italians claim that the French destroyed it rather than let it over to the Italians, but that's absurd. Pope Gegory XVII is nothing but a fraud.

Now I know that many people can get excited and overly radical on this issue; God forbid we have some South American extremists on the board. So I'd like to hear all your thoughts on the issue, but just keep it civil, ok guys?
 

Zioneer

Banned
OOC: Wow, I almost thought you were serious for a second there. Good job. :p

IC: Well, in my opinion, the Pope in Mexico City has more of a claim to be the Pope of Rome, but I prefer the Pope of Madrid, the bishop that the Spainards elevated to their Papacy. Spain has professed to be the protector of the Catholic faith throughout it's existence, something the Mexico Pope and Italian Pope can't say is true.

So I'd say that the Spaniard Pope is the true Pope.

Now, if both Mexico and Spain decided to agree on the same Pope, and united, at least on that issue, now that would be interesting, no?
 
The ONLY Thing to do Really ...

Is The Same Suggestion that was Raised Shortly After The Split, in The First Place!

ALL Current Popes Must Renounce their Titles ...

Followed Swiftly, By The Election of a Unification Pontiff!

:eek:
 
While Historically speaking I'd agree LA, but Francis Arinze("Pope Innocent XIV") and the Mexican based Church is far far to right wing, Man-only Priesthood, anti-gay stands, so on and so forth, and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor("Pope Gegory XVII") and the Italian Chruch has aloud Women Priests and married Priests and openly gay Priests so he has my vote.


(as a Jew I don't really care)
 
OOC: You shouldn't have opened the flood gates of more that two Popes :p)

I personally believe that Pope Adrian VIII in Salzburg (Christoph Schönborn) is the true Pope, after all he is recognized by the Catholics of central and eastern Europe, plus the sources I have indicate that many of the Cardinals and Bishops fled to the Habsburg Monarchy as Franz Joseph was the closest non-belligerent Catholic Monarch and he attempted to invoke Jus exclusivae to prevent the election of the Roman Pretender in the following months.
 
As an Anglican, I don't really care too much, but I find it interesting to note that Catholics in Scandinavia, The British Isles and the Anglosphere (Canda, US, ANZAC etc.) follow the Birmingham Pope. It's been very beneficial actually, really unifying the Irish and preventing violence.
 
OOC: Wow, I almost thought you were serious for a second there. Good job. :p

IC: Well, in my opinion, the Pope in Mexico City has more of a claim to be the Pope of Rome, but I prefer the Pope of Madrid, the bishop that the Spainards elevated to their Papacy. Spain has professed to be the protector of the Catholic faith throughout it's existence, something the Mexico Pope and Italian Pope can't say is true.

So I'd say that the Spaniard Pope is the true Pope.

Now, if both Mexico and Spain decided to agree on the same Pope, and united, at least on that issue, now that would be interesting, no?


But the Spainard Pope is in the same situation as the Italian one! He was just set up as a figure-head to unite the Spanish people after the Spanish Civil War! You live in Spain don't you; I've only met Spainish people who support the Spainard Pope.


While Historically speaking I'd agree LA, but Francis Arinze("Pope Innocent XIV") and the Mexican based Church is far far to right wing, Man-only Priesthood, anti-gay stands, so on and so forth, and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor("Pope Gegory XVII") and the Italian Chruch has aloud Women Priests and married Priests and openly gay Priests so he has my vote.


(as a Jew I don't really care)
You have to understand though, many of the Catholics in South America have been radicalized by the Civil Wars in the region. At least he still preaches peace, you know?


OOC: You shouldn't have opened the flood gates of more that two Popes :p)

I personally believe that Pope Adrian VIII in Salzburg (Christoph Schönborn) is the true Pope, after all he is recognized by the Catholics of central and eastern Europe, plus the sources I have indicate that many of the Cardinals and Bishops fled to the Habsburg Monarchy as Franz Joseph was the closest non-belligerent Catholic Monarch and he attempted to invoke Jus exclusivae to prevent the election of the Roman Pretender in the following months.


As an Anglican, I don't really care too much, but I find it interesting to note that Catholics in Scandinavia, The British Isles and the Anglosphere (Canda, US, ANZAC etc.) follow the Birmingham Pope. It's been very beneficial actually, really unifying the Irish and preventing violence.


Do either of these Popes have legitimate historical claims? I think you've really exaggerated how much they're supported--The Italian Pope is by far the most adhered to Pope(being in Rome adds legitimacy) and the Pope in Mexico City follows closely with a lot of South America.

OOC: NO MORE POPES!!

I don't want to retcon you guys, but come on, too many Popes is getting unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Reminds me of Prince Dimitri...
IC:
Well considering im not South American i think im suppose to follow the Italian Pope.

Then again the seat of the Spanish Pope has done a lot more to defend Catholicism back in the Time of Many Popes and Hats Troubles.

Well on the bright at least this situation caused excommunication to be defacto illegal.
 
As an Anglican, I don't really care too much, but I find it interesting to note that Catholics in Scandinavia, The British Isles and the Anglosphere (Canda, US, ANZAC etc.) follow the Birmingham Pope. It's been very beneficial actually, really unifying the Irish and preventing violence.

You mean York right? Birmingham isn't an "independent" city state...

Being head of the majority of the most powerful nations on Earth. I feel he can hardly be ruled out as a claimant.

I believe that his line originally came from the Celtic and Nordic churches, when they were urm, "taken in" by the Catholic church.

Imagine what the world would look like without it? No Union of the North Sea [All Nordic Countries, all British Isle countries] for one. The Commonwealth too benefits, having both a shared Monarch and a shared Pope does wonders for relations.
 
You know, not trying to dismiss anyone's religion but I don't think the Birmingham Pope can be considered legitimate - he has no meaningful followers outside of the English-speaking nations, which makes him pretty clearly the head of a national church; Anglican-conservative, run out of Birmingham and counting most of the Irish as members, and Anglican-liberal, run out of Canterbury with most of Britain as members. His followers disagree vehemently, of course, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

We unfortunately have to decide on practical rather than procedural matters - all of the current lines of Popes followed canon law and precedent close ENOUGH in their elections to be considered legitimate.

I admire the Salzburg Popes since they're the ones with significant numbers of followers in Communist states; a lot less luxury and comfort and a lot more trials and tribulations for them. Detractors insist that means there's coercion in every Papal election for them, but I personally think it plausible enough that God prefers His church to survive rather than martyr itself en masse in those regions. And I can't imagine deliberately choosing the Mexican Papacy after the Inquisition was reinstated. American Catholics are pretty well devided between the Mexico City and Birmingham Popes, with only a scattering loyal to Rome, and frankly the presence of a significant minority in the most powerful nation on earth who think the Inquisition is a Good Idea scares the bejeebers out of me.

The first Roman and Spanish Popes (well, first Roman in the Many Popes Period) may have been tainted, but that doesn't mean subsequent ones are. Gregory XVII is an excellent Pope. If there were a parish and diocese near where I live that followed him, I'd join it...but there isn't. So Birmingham it is for me, unless I relocate out of country or to one of the few little enclaves on the East Coast.
 

Cook

Banned
The Real Popes are those that can trace their family tree back to Pope Alexander VI’s Children.

God gives us a Papal occupant via hereditary selection; anything else is heresy!
:mad:
 
Top