Catholic Encyclopedia also points to the fact, that later there were Popes with the same name as Avignon antipopes, as a proof that they were really antipopes. But it doesn't comment the fact, that Pope Alexander VI took another name then Alexander V:

Catholic Encyclopedia, Western Schism

Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.

So What is a great track http://youtu.be/LoYYIfbdEIw it "starts" at 1:30

Any councils at all. For example, Bonaventure (1221-74) wrote ("The Filioque, History of a Doctrinal Controversy", A. Edward Siecienski, Oxford, 2010, pp. 128, 266):

The Byzantine belief that the addition required the authority of an ecumenical council (with representation from the other patriarchal sees) was easily handled by Bonaventure, who argued “that it was not opportune to call them, because the Church could [do this] without them; it was laborious, on account of the distance; it was not unfruitful, because there was no longer the great wisdom among the Greeks [as there once was] since it had passed over to the Latins; it was dangerous, because it was dangerous to put into doubt what was already held certain.” 125

125 Ibid. [Bonaventure, Commentaria In Quatuor Libros Sententiarum I d.II, a.I, q.I (Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera omnia, I, 212).]

This question is very deep and have several layers. First, it shows that not always Popes were visible signs of unity. Second, as I've already said, Western Schism resembles East-West Schism.

Think of the story from the Old Testament of Solomon, an infant and two women. To determine which woman was real mother, he ordered to cut infant into two parts.

When the Church was already cut into two parts during thirty years, so that people in one part were out of the Church, no one of two Popes arrived to the Council to Pisa in order to heal the Schism, to stop a half of their flock being out of the Church. This was a legitimate reason for deposing both of them, because, according to the sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, "not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so":

Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the parable in the Gospel, distributes talents to each man according to his ability, and at the fitting time demands an account of the work done by every man. And if he to whom but one talent has been committed is condemned because he has not worked with it but only kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horryble judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning himself, but even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence in the way of others? Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety in others, neglects to do so. 1

1 This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius.

So....sin exists. and the people who lead the Church doesn't always perfectly exemplify what Christ wanted for his Church.... this comes as a surprise to no one.







Not at all, at no point has the Patriarch of Constantinople ever claimed to be the bishop of Rome.

This is rubbish. There will always be some who denied the legitimacy of a leader. Even today some loonies think that Obama is not a president because he was not born on American soil. Just because someone denied a leader's legitimacy doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

I took a look at that old Annuario Pontificio. It does sound that the numbers were confusing at that time. For example, there is an entry that states:

207. Giovanni XXII, o XXIII, o XXIV, Napolitano, Cossa, c. 1410, G. A. 5, g. 13.

The word "o" is Italian, meaning "or".

I do have an updated Annuario Pontificio, dated 2005 and printed at the Vatican City. Here are several lines from page 17*:

Gregorio XII, Veneziano, Angelo Correr, 30.XI, 19.XI.1406 - 4.VII.1415.

[Clemente VII, di Ginovra, Roberto dei conti del Genevois, 20.IX, 31.X.1378 - 16.IX.1394].

[Benedetto XIII, di Illueca (Aragona), Pietro Martinez de Luna, 28.IX, 11.X.1394 - 29.XI.1422 o 23.V.1423].

[Alessandro V, di Kare (Creta), Pietro Filargis, 26.VI, 7.VII.1409 - 3.V.1410].

[Giovanni XXIII, di Napoli, Baldassarre Cossa, 17, 25.V.1410 - 29.V.1415].

Martino V, di Genazzano, Oddone Colonna, 11, 21.XI.1417 - 20.II.1431.

Antipopes are enclosed within brackets and right-justified in the latest Annuario Pontificio.

That book also has a footnote for Alessandro VI, di Jativa (Valencia), Rodrigo de Borja, II, 26.VIII.1492 - 18.VIII.1503.

The footnote for "VI" states that:

Can be "V" since Pope Alexander V in the Pisa Council (years 1409-1410) was considered illegitimate.

There is a list of popes, along with anitpopes (enclosed within brackets):

http://iteadjmj.com/docs/pontefici.pdf

Thanks

Thanks

And not only names of the Popes were confusing, but also which Councils of the time of the Western Schism were true. For example, Pope Pius II in his youth defended the Council of Basle. Later, when he became a Pope, he changed his mind, but still explicitly confirmed the definition of the Council of Constance about the Ecumenical Councils:

We, to whom authority has been given to convoke and dissolve general councils, declare these things concerning the power and authority of the Roman pontiff. <...> With these authorities, we recognize the power and authority of a general council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the ecumenical council was assembled there. <...> This we assert, already aged and established at the summit of the apostolate to defend the truth.

To the best of my knowledge all of the Orthodox Patriarch’s recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the legitimate successor, and current leader, of the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you saying that he is not?

Are you saying that there is another group of people that are actually the “real” Roman Catholic Church?

What is your point?

With Ecumenical councils it is not either/or, the acts of ANY Council are not valid until ratified by the Pope, and he doesn't have to ratify everything, he can ratify some of the things the Council does whole rejecting others.

And this what happened with both the Council of Basle and the Council of Constance, some of their acts have been ratified, others have been rejected.

This is not complicated....and I wish to remind you that you are dealing with knowledgeable Catholics here, not the kind of people who will find your trivial revelations 'shocking'.

There are only 21 ecumenical councils, last of which is the Second Vatican Council. There are only two councils about the Western schism. The council of Constance (1414-18) settled the Western Schism. And there is another Council of Basle-Ferrara-Florence (1431-45) invoked by Pope Eugene IV and ratified by him. That is about reunion with the Greek Church in 1439. Below describes the Council:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun18.html

This is not trivial — I've looked up to replies in "Anti-Janus", but this one remained without an answer. Unlike other Popes, Pius II explicitly ratified that part of acts, which refer to the power of the ecumenical council:

"With these authorities, we recognize the power and authority of a general council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the ecumenical council was assembled there."

In both cases the question is about certain procedures. In case of Western Schism, the procedure of electing the Pope. In case of East-West Schism, the procedure of defining the true doctrine — see this quotation from the Sentence of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Since the Pope didn't respect this procedure, the East-West Schism began automatically.

Yes: which Church is the “real” Catholic Church? Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church? How can you prove that Roman Catholic Church is a “real” Catholic Church?

OK, now I see where you are going with this. Although I still don't see the reason for the drawn-out discussion of anti-popes. How does the existence of "anti-popes" in the 15th century relate to the validity of the Roman Catholic Church today?

From my perspective the "Western Schism" was a confusing time in the Church. However, it was resolved and we are now living in a world almost 600 years removed from that time.

Not to mention the Second Council of Constantinople.

True enough but Caerularius at the very least acted as though he had the authority of the Pope.

Which doctrine are you referring to? By the way, the same source you cited has this to say about the MSS. of Constantinople II:

Bagheera, thanks! I found there very detailed explanation about that passage. And also one more passage on the same matter from the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is quoted there:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pv1a5x ... &q&f=false

... The Acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth. Then the holy Council declared: “It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them. For great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.”

Why the question of procedure is so important? Because after all, if the doctrine of the Primacy of the Pope wasn't carefully compared to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, according to mentioned above rule of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, — that means that this doctrine was invented by Popes themselves. But according to the words of Jesus Christ in John 7.18,

18 He that speaks of himself seeks his own glory

But weren't the Popes seeking for their own glory? In the preface of the memoirs of Pope Pius II we can read:

Argumentative types can debate all they like about the state of the dead, but there can be no doubt that the living take pleasure in the glory that is theirs today, and hope it will continue after death. It is this which sustains the most brilliant intellects and (even more than the hope of a celestial life, which once begun will never end) encourages and invigorates the human spirit. This is especially true of the pope of Rome, whom almost all men abuse while he lives among them but praise once he is dead. We ourselves have seen Martin V, Eugenius IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III condemned by the public while they lived and extolled to the skies after their deaths. <...> Pope Pius II. He is accused and condemned while he lives among us. At his death, he will be praised; he will be missed when he is no longer here. <...> and Pius will be numbered among the illustrious popes.