Enigma:
versus
https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12318604

what is your point exactly?

Ubenedictus: that some people "they represented" saw them as heads doesn't make them heads. If the bishops in the metropolitan see of lagos names card okogie as pope, that doesn't make him pope, that makes him an antipope and d bishops as schism 'causers'.
i'm aware of the story! Boniface had commited political suicide, his diplomacy has been found wanting and he was kidnaped by d french and died in captivity, clement was elected pope in a conclave and in a bid to espace the anarchy in rome, he started to live in different french diocese until he bought avigon in france, unknown to him he had jumped from fry pan to fire and he had to excercise very heavy diplomacy as though his life depended on it. Thus d bishop of rome was in exile.
After a long time the papacy came back and d pope didn't last long after that, he died and it was time for a new conclave. The italians wanted an italian as bishop of rome and they didnt hide their preference, the conclave was held and a new pope was anounced that was URBAN VI, all those who later became anti popes acknowledge urban as pope, he was crowned and sitted in d papal see! After some time, it was clear that he was harsh towards his cardinals (i think he wasn't even a cardinal when he was elected pope.), he alienated them and they were like "see this small boy of yesterday", his failure at administration proved disastrous! Some roman cardinals pretended as though they were leaving rome because of d hot weather and went to join d french cardinals and elected someone who named himself clement vii, he was an antipope, his suppose election is null and void because urban was still alive. Urban was pope before his bad decisions and thus was pope after his bad decisions clement was an anti pope. Urban died and was suceeded by BONIFACE IX, who in turn was succeeded by INNOCENT XII. The anti pope in avigon died and was succeeded by another antipope benedict xii who was a joker. At this time a union was sought and some cardinals supporting innocent (pope) and benedict (antipope) came together and elected another person, this too was an antipope (john xxiii) because pope innocent was still pope. Pope Innocent died and was succeed by pope GREGORY XII.
At this time there was one pope 2 anti popes Gregory xii was pope, benedict xiii was antipope, john xxii was antipope.
The whole problem was resolved by the council of constance that declear that john xiii wasn't a pope and benedict xiii wasn't pope. For the sake of peace pope Gregory xii resigned (he was d pope that resigned before benedict d 16) and went to live a peaceful life. MARTIN V was elected pope.
I just listed d popes and antipopes.
The popes during that period were:
Urban vi
Boniface ix
Innocent xii
Gregory xii
Martin v
the antipopes include:
Clement vii
benedict xiii
john xxiii.
Lastly be careful of the source you get your stories from.
Like i said earlier the weren't two popes but two people claiming to be pope. 1 pope and an antipope.
Peace.

You know something. Not that I'm doubting the authenticity of what you wrote, only that when dealing with recorded history I like it better if they come with a link. I can't just believe it because you said it. Please provide me a satisfactory link.

Reyginus: You know something. Not that I'm doubting the authenticity of what you wrote, only that when dealing with recorded history I like it better if they come with a link. I can't just believe it because you said it. Please provide me a satisfactory link.

this should help,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.html

Ihedinobi: Lol. The result of fanaticism, I guess.

and this is very charitable and unfanatic right?

Ubenedictus: this should help,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.html

This is a very complicated issue. While I agree with the article on the below explanation...
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the
faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election
takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called,
somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the
West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western
Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that
it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all
till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but
I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this
treasure?" After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of
the events of this sad period he says: "This
dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he
regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was
the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).
...
As in the link, Pope Urban sudden change in behaviour led to the election of Clement. The problem is now, we cannot completely define an antipope where the same cardinals who voted for the pope were involved in the election.
According to google 'If the Pope became physically or mentally
incapacitated then the College of Cardinals could
meet and declare that he no longer has control of
his faculties and is therefore impeded in his
office. This would then open the way to elect a new
Pope'. The sudden change in behaviour of the pope can be termed an inability to control his abilities. And this affected his office.

Reyginus: This is a very complicated issue. While I agree with the article on the below explanation...
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the
faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or raesignation a new election
takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called,
somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the
West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western
Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that
it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all
till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but
I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this
treasure?"

please take note of the bolded.

After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of
the events of this sad period he says: "This
dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he
regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was
the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).
...
As in the link, Pope Urban sudden change in behaviour led to the election of Clement.

a change in behaviour doesn't depose anyone,

The problem is now, we cannot completely define an antipope where the same cardinals who voted for the pope were involved in the election.

actually we can! Those who went the otherway are simply schimatic.

According to google 'If the Pope became physically or mentally
incapacitated then the College of Cardinals could
meet and declare that he no longer has control of
his faculties and is therefore impeded in his
office. This would then open the way to elect a new
Pope'. The sudden change in behaviour of the pope can be termed an inability to control his abilities. And this affected his office.

a "change in behaviour" isn't termed "mentally incapable".
This aside the above would have been an interesting arguement of what constitute "mentally incapacitated" if the schimatic cardinal elected d other papal claimant because the thought urban was mad! Unfortunately the above isn't an arguement because the schimatic cardinal never claimed urban was "physically or mentally incapacitated" instead they tried to justify their act by claiming was never a pope.
That alone distroys d arguement base a mental incapability.

Reyginus: This is a very complicated issue. While I agree with the article on the below explanation...
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the
faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election
takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called,
somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the
West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western
Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that
it is not manifest to all and is not recognized by all
till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but
I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any less the possessor of this
treasure?" After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of
the events of this sad period he says: "This
dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he
regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was
the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461).
...
As in the link, Pope Urban sudden change in behaviour led to the election of Clement. The problem is now, we cannot completely define an antipope where the same cardinals who voted for the pope were involved in the election.
According to google 'If the Pope became physically or mentally
incapacitated then the College of Cardinals could
meet and declare that he no longer has control of
his faculties and is therefore impeded in his
office. This would then open the way to elect a new
Pope'. The sudden change in behaviour of the pope can be termed an inability to control his abilities. And this affected his office.

again i just took a quick look into canon law and it seems there was never a canon law that ever claimed the college of cardinals can declear a pope physical or mentally incapacitated. It seems the bishop of d primus see is judged by no one unless he is dead.
On the inability of cardinals or the college of cardinals to judge the pope "mentally incapacitated" please see this http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office/ pay attention to the last paragraphs. It does seem everyone lack the ability to declear the pope mentally incapacitated. Also check the last days of pope johnpaul ii when it could be medically proven that he was physically incapacitated and yet nobody dear calls d college and claim that because the pope was physically incapacitated it should be decleared that he is no longer pope.

Ubenedictus: please take note of the bolded. a change in behaviour doesn't depose anyone, actually we can! Those who went the otherway are simply schimatic.
a "change in behaviour" isn't termed "mentally incapable".
This aside the above would have been an interesting arguement of what constitute "mentally incapacitated" if the schimatic cardinal elected d other papal claimant because the thought urban was mad! Unfortunately the above isn't an arguement because the schimatic cardinal never claimed urban was "physically or mentally incapacitated" instead they tried to justify their act by claiming was never a pope.
That alone distroys d arguement base a mental incapability.

The reason I said this is complicated. A change in behaviour can also be as a result of mental incapability. But that is an aside.
If we get the thorough statement of the cardinals' reason, it will help understand what really happened.
If their is no other reason than the one you pointed out, then we even have to question the integrity they employed in the election of pope. The decision to pick who is qualified for the position should not be left to a set of incompetent people.

Reyginus: The reason I said this is complicated. A change in behaviour can also be as a result of mental incapability. But that is an aside.
If we get the thorough statement of the cardinals' reason, it will help understand what really happened.
If their is no other reason than the one you pointed out, then we even have to question the integrity they employed in the election of pope. The decision to pick who is qualified for the position should not be left to a set of incompetent people.

the link i provided stated the reason. they tried to argue that Urban wasn't pope and that the conclave was forced.

Reyginus: The reason I said this is complicated. A change in behaviour can also be as a result of mental incapability. But that is an aside.
If we get the thorough statement of the cardinals' reason, it will help understand what really happened.
If their is no other reason than the one you pointed out, then we even have to question the integrity they employed in the election of pope. The decision to pick who is qualified for the position should not be left to a set of incompetent people.

my dear I'll be interested in discussing the intricacies of that 'schism' when you open a thread on it, but suffice it to say that the card. didn't have and even till today do not have the power to depose the pope, thus they created an anti pope and my point stands that there was one pope and other anti popes and infallibility rested with the pope

I think we have to disagree to agree here.

Ubenedictus: my dear I'll be interested in discussing the intricacies of that 'schism' when you open a thread on it, but suffice it to say that the card. didn't have and even till today do not have the power to depose the pope, thus they created an anti pope and my point stands that there was one pope and other anti popes and infallibility rested with the pope

What do you have to say here. Can it be justified biblically?

Reyginus: BIBLE READING AND PRAYER
Do catholics pray? Yes, but a few.
Priest: How does the catholic church encourage their parishoners/members to read the bible?
Rey: By selling of sunday missals and bulletin.
Priest: Yes, you answered correctly.
Without the word in you, you can never speak the word. Even when you, everything remains buffered. Sincerely speaking, the catholic church does not encourage the reading of the bible. If not for the 'Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement', the catholic church would have been gone by now. Did I just break your rib? I'm sorry.
Once by chance, we encounter a 'holyghost father' who insists in praise and worship, our tendons begin to apoptosize. Some will not open their mouths to worship(who knows if their hearts is doing the thing), majority will be seated except for the 'father's' intervention. And the cultists, sorry I mean the knights will be grumbling with their pot-bellies. I mean no disrespect. God save this house. Was this the founding fathers plan? Whoever brought the idea of bulletins and sunday missals has an ulterior motive.
Beyond the hail mary prayer, how many of us can pray for an hour? So many question I'd like to ask.
What is the prayer life of the average catholic child?
I remember back then in boarding house, a catholic boy was called upon to pray for the general. Guess what? You guessed right already. He switched into the normal hail mary mantra. I was engulfed in shame.
How do we justify the prayer and societies we create for every saint? Prayer to st micheal, legion of mary, prayer to saint joseph, devine mercy prayer, etc etc. No room for creativity. Lol.
Sometimes I wonder if we will ever change, maybe I'm wallowing in delusion.
But as the bible says....only the violent taketh it by force. The catholic church must be restored to the former glory.

Reyginus: I think we have to disagree to agree here.

there is nothing to disagree on, the inability of the college of card. to dispose the pope has already been explained by canon lawyers. The antipope of that period are known. The pope has the infallibility.

What do you have to say here. Can it be justified biblically?

that isnt a doctrinal problem! You seem concerned about bulletins! There were no single bibles till the 6th century ( or so i think), all there were were single books and snippets, bulletins and missal picture d liturgical reading of the church, and they are beneficial especially for those who wish to follow the liturgy. The idea the catholic church doesn't encourage the reading of the bible is laughable, infact there is indulgence attached to just a 15 mins study of sacred scripture! That is a joke at best.
Prayer is a personal or/and communal relationship with God, if you know catholics who can't address their heavenly father without the use of already made prayers then it is your DUTY to call them and teach them the basics of prayer as first and foremost a dialogue with God who is a friend. If you can't teach your brother then you shouldn't condem his/her crudity in prayers.
Peace

wow! @Ubenedictus you really tried in this thread

I'm so impressed with all dis giants of catholic that boldly confronted and overcome this unreasonable rants by anti-catholics.
Kudos to y'all.
.
A word for Mr poster...
Stop criticizing and start encouraging.
Treat others the way u will love to be treated...
Peace...