No Pope

HI everyone.

There was a prediction by someone, I don’t remember who but anyway there was to be no pope for a period of time.

Is it possible that these past many years there hasn’t been, that the Bishops have mainly been running the show.

God Bless Kathy

So you don’t believe Pope Benedict XVI is real?? How about Pope John Paul II? Did he exist??

I’m guessing OP’s contention would be that they weren’t validly elected or something, not that they didn’t exist of course.

What about the numerous other persons claiming the title of Pope? Could it really be possible that not a one of them is the real Pope?

Are these rhetorical questions? Just to think :hmmm:
Or is this a point of view of Sedevacantism?

Just wondering.

Paul

Another thought occurs to me - there have already been periods (short ones, I think the longest was about three years or so) in between Papal elections, for different reasons such as inability to agree on who to choose as Pope. During those times there was no Pope, obviously, but that doesn’t mean the Church founded on Peter wasn’t still continuing and functioning just fine.

Now the point is the Cardinals and Bishops ARE all valid successors of the Apostles, all promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit, so their collective choice of Pope (ie when the election is undisputed) is necessarily valid too.
This eliminates the ‘antipopes’ of the Western Schism whose elections were so hotly disputed that it could only be ended by Pope and antipope(s?) all resigning and agreeing to abide by a fresh neutral choice of candidate.

There’s no question of an undisputed choice of Pope having been made by the College of Cardinals and their choice of Pope not being valid.

So you don’t believe Pope Benedict XVI is real?? How about Pope John Paul II? Did he exist??

Of course I believe their the true popes! A bit touchy don’t you think?

I’m trying to say that the Bishops did alot of the decision making and so on. After all they do hold alot of power.

God Bless: Kathy

There were alot of abuses that came after Vatican ll and I don’t believe the Pope at that time said sure do this or do that.
But someone allowed it, why not the Bishops?

God Bless: Kathy

Bishops on the whole don’t choose Popes, Cardinals do (they are bishops too, but a much smaller number!)

As for Bishops doing a lot of decision making, they always have done, right from the beginning. They’re successors of the Apostles, who were all pretty authoritative in their own right even if Peter was their leader and chief.

And there’ve always been disagreements as to how to do things, with some doing one thing and some another, right from the beginning as well - remember that first Council in Jerusalem in Acts where the Apostles had to figure out how to deal with Gentile converts to Christianity?

If Popes could or did make all the decisions themselves there’d be no need for Bishops in the first place. If Peter could’ve run everything on his own there’d have been no need for the other Apostles. And you try leading a BILLION people, living in every country of the world, and not trusting a large part of the decision making to others - it simply couldn’t be done.

Maybe it was like some people claim that the Apollo landings were all done on a Hollywood set. Perhaps the last conclaves were computer generated Cardinals, using actors for the close ups.

This position is called sedevacantism and is banned on CAF. If you are truly interested in this topic because you honestly do not know the answer, are tempted to think it is true, or need an apologetical defense against it, please send me a private message.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=222052

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

This seems like one of those veiled “I am ccurious and want to know…” type threads that degrades into a forum for attacking the Church and putting out propaganda against the Vatican. They all seem to start the same way. Well I do say, WE HAVE A POPE AND HAVE NOT BEEN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE NO POPES, except from when one dies and another is elected. Thats all that needs to be said.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

**
Is it possible that these past many years there hasn’t been, that the Bishops have mainly been running the show.**

**Haven’t the Bishops ALWAYS been running things?

The Pope is the Pope because he is FIRST of all a Bishop–the Bishop of Rome.**

If disobedience is evidence that there is no Pope, then we’ve probably never had one. :smiley:

For the record, I don’t think the OP is referring to sedevacantism at all.

As to the last question: Kathy, it is true that many abuses have taken place since V2, and it also true that no Pope since then has liked them. Paul VI said that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. However, this cannot be blamed on the Bishops. Bishops have not muscled the Pope into neutrality in recent years. He has as much authority as he always had. He’s the Supreme Pontiff, and has the final, infallible, word on anything he wants. However, this does not mean that he micromanages everything. The Holy Father isn’t going to write your Pastor a letter about his sloppy liturgy, or come and visit one day to inspect. Bishops look after these things, and they don’t have more power now than they once did. In fact, it can be argued that since the creation of Bishops’s conferences after V2, individual Bishops have less power than they once had. Most post-V2 problems started on a grass-roots level (in parishes, and amongst priests and laypeople) and then sometimes crept into the Episcopate. Now, we are seeing the opposite–a grassroots initiative promoting Orthodoxy and tradition, which is becoming more prevalent in the Episcopate, e.g., Archbishop Ranjith.

Nobody ever allowed these abuses. Many just started happening, and overwhelmed the Bishops. These things had to be dealt with carefully. JP2 worked diligently and slowly to turn things around, knowing that if started a massive “crack-down” many would leave the Church, and be lost. Benedict XVI is only able to do the wonderful things he does because of the groundwork of his predecessor. There is no Benedict without John Paul, just as there is no sunset without a sunrise.

Finally, common sense on my level!!!

No, it isn’t possible. What is possible though, is that we have had nothing but bad popes since Vatican II, and in my humble opinion, it is not only possible, but true.

I am sorry to say that I must disagree. We have had nothing but excellent Popes since the Council, just as we had excellent Popes before. Great men, such as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul the Great, and our German Shepherd Benedict XVI. This isn’t to say that there weren’t corrupt Popes or Anti-Popes in the past, but with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, we certainly have been blessed by the Holy Spirit. John Paul II was “Totus Tuum” in response to Our Lady, and he gave the inspiring statement, which I can only paraphrase from memory, that true freedom is the right to act as we ought.

For the greater glory of God.

There have been several times in the history of the Church when we have had no pope for an extended period of time. I can’t remember which pope it was, but there was one election that lasted three years.

The problem is that when the chair of Peter is empty, the bishops cannot make any decisions except administrative. They can’t ordain, they cannot reassign bishops, they cannot hold councils and synods, they cannot change Church laws or any other function that is reserved for the Pope or requires the Popes authority. Everything comes to a standstill and the only thing that the bishops can do is to keep things going until a pope is elected.

If there is such a prophecy, it has been fulfilled at least three or four times.

JR :slight_smile:

Wow, too bad you have it so upside down and backwards…erase Vatican II from the annals of history and we see the Catholic Church in all of Her glory and truth.

You are passing judgement on a council that the Church holds as authoritative. You are also passing judgement on men who have tried everything they can to save souls, who have inspired mercy, and who have tried to find the best way to fulfill their ministry as Christ wanted them to do so.

Where is the “badness” in trying to fulfill Christ’s command?

Where is our faith in the keeper of the keys and he who has the power to bind and unbind?

Are we in authority to to say what popes can bind or unbind?

Are they bad becasue they don’t bind what we want?

All of these popes have made an earnest effort to find as many possible ways to save souls. This is what Christ did and what Christ asked Peter to do. He commanded Peter to protect and feed his sheep. This is what these men have done. Christ’s sheep are not only a select group, but all of humanity.

The Good Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes after the one who is lost, let’s not forget this.

The Vicar of Christ is the shepherd who must go after the one lost sheep. He is also the one who holds the keys to the kingdom. The person who holds the keys is the person with the power. He is the one who has the authority to bind and unbind. Whatever he binds shall be bound in Heaven and whatever he unbinds shall be unbound in Heaven. Christ did not put conditions on this promise.

As to their personal holiness, that’s God’s issue. As we can see from scripture, both in the OT and NT, God is not very particular about whom he hires.

Moses doubted. David murdered and committed adultery. Abraham used a slave to produce an heir. Peter denied him three times. Paul watched and enjoyed the murder of Steven. The other Apostles ran away when Jesus was arrested. Augustine had a bastard son. Heaven’s Department of Human Resources doesn’t seem to be as stringent as we would like it to be.

JR :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.