Let's talk about antipopes Veeky Forums. Did any of them have legitimacy to claim the throne of St.Peter? Were the Avignon Popes antipopes, and can a Pope move the See away from the Vatican?
And a question to those on this board that do not consider Vatican II to be legitimate, do you acknowledge the Popes after John XXIII? Do you think that the throne of St.Peter belong to one of the modern antipopes or do you think that the See is in the sedevacante state?
Of course they were legitimate only Luigis would tell you otherwise.
Antipopes.
Legitimate.
kek
Kinda dumb.
Weren't they all male?
They should have called them Uncle Popes.
All popes are illegitimate
The very office of the Papacy is illegitimate
Care to elaborate?
Rome is anti-Biblical
>You are rock and upon this rock.......
Satan's twisted lies to support satan's church.
You are Petros, and upon this very different thing you said, Petros, (You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God) will I build my church.
>Peter was never pope
Baldassare Cossa best anti-pope. He was a fucking pirate.
>there is more than one word for rock in Aramaic
lol no
Christ did not speak Greek
I find this hard to believe since he grew close to the decapolis and went on tour there frequently
>scripture isn't infallible
Actually it's Petros and Petra
He most likely did since Greek was the lingua franca of the middle east at the time due to Hellenism
The petra is in parenthesis. Jesus is the Rock, and Paul goes on in his letter to the Corinthians saying that all of the prophets and all of the apostles are the foundation of the church, Christ being the chief cornerstone and head
God can't speak Greek?
Are you sure?
What books of the bible were originally written in Aramaic again?
Would you speak the lingua franca with your close friends or would you speak your common home tongue with your friends ?
None
They were written in Greek
Hence the grammatical change in order to not call Peter a girl because Greek has gendered words but Aramaic doesn't
>this is what protestants actually believe
Oi how many Crusades you run matey?
Mind repeating that in Englés, Paco?
The Greek New Testament is not a translation of Aramaic
>t. Luigi
>it's one of those threads again
That's so odd, because Jesus called Peter Petros, a man's name.
See, if Peter was the foundation of the church, Jesus might have said something like "I shall call you Petros, and upon you, Petros, will I build my church."
And yet, that's not what the bible says.
In fact, Petros is excluded from being the petra by virtue of the first sentence above not existing.
I was called a Crusader by Saddm and bin Laden, yes. Does that count?
>Did any of them have legitimacy to claim the throne of St.Peter
No, or else they wouldn't be antipopes.
The Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Rome whether or not he actually lives in Rome. Someone could be the Pope and never set foot in Rome.
>and can a Pope move the See away from the Vatican
It wouldn't really make sense for the Diocese of Rome not to include Rome, though if Rome were destroyed or whatever the diocese would still exist even if the city didn't (for example, the Patriarch of Antioch has been based out of Damascus since Antioch was destroyed, but he is still the Patriarch of Antioch).
I do consider Vatican II to be legitimate, even if it is too often implemented poorly. The Chair by definition can't belong to an antipope since they aren't popes.
So there is no unbroken succession of popes from Peter forward.
Good to know.
Of course not.
>were they legitimate?
Depends who you ask, but many people at the time thought so.
I'm reading a book about the Hundred Years War, and even though the French-based papacy might be considered a bunch of antipopes, they still had a lot of pull in France and to a lesser extent England at least.
>tfw no popes in Avignon
everything would have been so different
>that feel when we're living under a sinister antipope's usurpation of the throne of St. Peter right now
If not the Pope, then who has God chosen to lead his flock?
Is it no one? Maybe God just likes Chaos.
Jesus