by Anura Guruge
on January 8, 2023
The most basic definition of an antipope is a person of standing (i.e., one of prominence) who is actively in opposition to the reigning pope (in this case ‘Francis‘).
A January 9, 2023 UPDATE & CLARIFICATION.
[Based on the Jan. 9, 2023 comments by ‘Mark’ let me update & clarify the above statement. Per Mark an antipope MUST ‘actually CLAIM’ the papacy (as opposed to being in (open) opposition to the pope — WITH a following). The CLAIMING part has not always been the case. Some of the NEW LIST of early antipopes, e.g., ‘Natalius‘, never claimed to be pope per se. They just vehemently opposed the pope & HAD A FOLLOWING. I think we could all agree that a person who creates enough of a SCHISM, whether or not he actually did so by claiming to be pope, could (or should) qualify as an antipope. That was the criteria for some of the early popes. They split the Church.
Now note I never said the ex-pope was an antipope.
Title says ‘borderline‘. Doesn’t say he crossed it.
Also, I say ‘… class the ex-pope an outright antipope is …‘.
So, that part is clear. I have never (as yet (at least)) never said the ex-pope was an antipope.
The ex-pope Benedict XVI, whichever way you try to rationalize it, is an anomaly.
With the ex-pope it wasn’t a question of whether he ever tried to RECLAIM the papacy, more a question of whether he, 100%, relinquished his role as pope! Think about it. Though he resigned/retired he tried to look & be like ANOTHER pope. The media repeatedly talked about the ‘Two Popes’. There is even a widely watched movie, released in 2019′ called ‘The Two Popes‘. So, he didn’t have to claim to be pope, he continued to be VIEWED as one & he never REALLY tried to put a stop to that. He continued (v. irregularly) to insist on wearing white. He (ludicrously) maintained his regnal name. He insisted on staying on at the Vatican. He ‘promised’ that he would spend his retirement in prayer & meditation. That, alas, was not the case. One could even say he lied! So … This is an ex-pope whose background, behavior, motives & actions will get increasingly more scrutinized in the future. He was NO SAINT. 100 years from now, if people still care, I have a feeling, that his retirement will get deemed by some to have been antipopish. Time will tell.
The ex-pope had a following that refused to accept his resignation. That created a MINOR schism.
There is now talk that the more conservative Catholics (mainly in the U.S.) will peel off — i.e., another potential schism.
The ex-pope, one way or another, indubitably, created tension & problems for the reigning pope. Ganswein words CONFIRM THAT.
So, bottom line, I feel very justified in calling this ‘borderline antipopish‘.
END OF UPDATE.
Well it was never a secret that the ex-pope, renowned for being an arch-conservative & a scholarly theologian, didn’t always see eye-to-eye with the much less educated Francis, with his liberal tendencies. Now Georg Ganswein, in his book (to make another quick-buck) amply confirms this. It is even said, that he writes that they ‘butted heads‘.
That is antipope territory for sure.
The only reason that one wouldn’t class the ex-pope an outright antipope is that his criticism & opposition to Francis was muted in public, i.e., they butted heads privately trying to keep the gory details of their disagreements away from the media & public. If not for that ex-pope Benedict XVI would sure qualify as a modern day antipope.
Except that Benedict never actually claimed the papacy, post-resignation. THAT would make him an antipopeānothing else.
Happy New Year. Again, you appear to be making, in my opinion, your own definitions & criteria as to who qualifies as an antipope. But, before we go into that I did say ‘borderline’, I never said he crossed the line. It is 100% true that ex-Pope Benedict XVI never RE-CLAIMED the papacy BUT we could argue that maybe he never fully relinquished it. That we have a very popular documentary titled ‘Two Popes’ tells its own story as to the message. Given that you, certainly, are more of a follower of Catholic news that I, you must know that there is now talk of a NEW POTENTIAL (& I stress potential) SCHISM (by U.S. Catholics)) now that ex-pope B16 is gone. There were talks of schisms while he was alive. We both know that there were those that refused to accept his resignation. That he CONTINUED to INSIST on wearing while (which was highly provocative), use his regnal name (unheard of), live in the Vatican (unprecedented) & continue to employ a Secretary that he had appointed as Head of Papal Household would also seem to indicate that he never 100% stepped down. He SAID he would spend his retirement in prayer & meditation. He did NOT! We all know that. Yes, B16 will never be labelled an antipope per se, but his last years were not honorable. I will update my post, later this evening, to clarify these matters further. Since YOU are THE expert on antipopes I ask you to show me, PLEASE, where & how Natalius, Novatian or even St. Hippolytus CLAIMED to be pope. They were just in opposition to the Bishop of Rome. Their opposition is what earned them the title antipope. I will be updating my post later. Pax.