You're repeating the same garbage from 17 August @V.R.S.

Already refuted. Cut n' paste...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Benedict_XIII

--Following Clement's death on 16 September 1394, the cardinals met at Avignon. The conclave consisted of 11 French cardinals, eight Italians, four Spaniards, and one from Savoy, all proclaiming the ardent wish to reunite the church. The cardinals then elected Luna (Benedict XIII) as the new pope, on the condition that he should labor to quell the schism, and should resign the papal dignity whenever the pope of Rome should do the same, or the college of cardinals demand it.

On the death of Urban VI in 1389 the Roman College of Cardinals had chosen Boniface IX; the election of Benedict therefore perpetuated the Western Schism.--

So right there, we have "the new Pope" in Avignon and a Pope in Rome. Two, not just one.

Maybe you should look these things up in "wiki-guru" instead of relying on your own faulty knowlege of Church history.

Cf Catholic Encyclopedia > Pedro de Luna, Antipope, Benedict XIII vs [at least 4 popes] true Pope Pope Boniface IX followed by true Pope Innocent VII, followed by true Pope Gregory XII, followed by true Pope Martin V.

What an Antipope! The epitome perhaps.

@Ultraviolet Difficult to conduct any meaningful discourse with people who don’t know the definition of words, let alone history, for which there is no excuse as it is online.

@F M Shyanguya True. Difficult and made all the moreso when one's opponent is relying on his own memory and a (I suspect) increasingly sloppy reference to historical figures.

"As I stated during the Council of Constance (check out in your wiki you village idiot what it was)"

Let's do that, @Lambchops. Let's do JUST that.

"Though the elected Antipope Alexander V and his successor, Antipope John XXIII (not to be confused with the 20th-century Pope John XXIII), gained widespread support, especially at the cost of the Avignon antipope, the schism remained, now involving not two but three claimants: Gregory XII at Rome, Benedict XIII at Avignon, and John XXIII."

There weren't just two, Lambchop. There were three people claiming to be pope.

Now let's examine Pope Gregory XII a bit more closely.

--
"Gregory XII was chosen at Rome on 30 November 1406 by a conclave consisting of only fifteen cardinals under the express condition that, should Antipope Benedict XIII (1394-1423), the rival papal claimant at Avignon, renounce all claim to the papacy, he would also renounce his, so that a fresh election might be made and the Western Schism (1378-1417) ended."

Again there was a rival claim to the papacy.. Your claim remains false.

You also said,

"after the resignation of Pope Gregory there was no pope, only the anti-pope which falsifies your claim that for the anti-pope the pope is needed."

...and that's STILL wrong. Benedict XIII still had a rival claimant in Alexander V and his successor John XXIIII

"Thereupon on 4 July 1415, Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the Pope, which the cardinals accepted. ...The Council then set aside Antipope John XXIII (1410-15), the successor of Alexander V. After the former follower of Benedict XIII appeared, the council declared him deposed; and the Western Schism was ended.

What I said remains true. There has to be a pope in order for there to be an anti-pope.

The problem with this period of time is there were entirely too many people people claiming to be "pope".

During Gregory's papacy there was Avignon claimant:Benedict XIII and Pisan claimants Alexander V and later John XXIII

So, no, it doesn't falsify my claim at all. The events surrounding the Council of Constance and Gregory XII's resignation only reinforce it. Everybody and his dog was claiming to be pope.

...and NONE of this is relevant in any way to the present situation.

Benedict XVI resigned.
The College of Cardinals met.
The College of Cardinals elected Francis as his successor.
Benedict fully recognizes and acknowleges Francis as "the true pope"
Those are Benedict's own words quoted, btw.

So if you're trying to apply the turbulent era of the Pisan and Avignon anti-popes to the present situation, you're as dumb as Jimmy.

If you're trying to correct me just for the sheer sake of doing so, which is likely given your character, you're still wrong.

Oh, and one more thing. It's time you learn to properly reference your popes. as in, Gregory XII not just "Pope Gregory".

Your scholarship is as unconscionably sloppy as your mouth. That's a hallmark of a "typical Internet era pseudo-intellect" .

Well done, V.R.S. you've tripped over your own feet (and the finer points of history) as every "l'idiot du village" et pitre invariably does.

"You also said,

"after the resignation of Pope Gregory there was no pope, only the anti-pope which falsifies your claim that for the anti-pope the pope is needed."

...and that's STILL wrong. Benedict XIII still had a rival claimant in Alexander V and his successor John XXIIII"

---

You are the great village idiot indeed. Alexander V died years before the Council of Constance, Cossa was proclaimed no pope and tried by the Council.Moreover Alexander V and Cossa were anti-popes not popes.
You are too stupid to read the text and understand it. But your pride is enormous.

@Ultraviolet

Antipope has already been defined. Cf. Is Pope Francis an Antipope?

Even by language Antipope means “against” or “opposite” [a] Pope.

"Alexander V died years before the Council of Constance."

which is why I wrote:

"and his successor John XXIIII"

What I am showing is a chain of rival claims to the papacy. even from "line" of contenders. Please DO try to keep up with the conversation.

"Cossa was proclaimed no pope"

Again, wiki contradicts you, mon bouffon
--
John XXIII was acknowledged as pope by France, England, Bohemia, Portugal, parts of the Holy Roman Empire, and numerous Northern Italian city states, including Florence and Venice and the Patriarchate of Aquileia;
--

"Alexander V and Cossa were anti-popes not popes."

Not according to entire sections of Europe at that time.

If John XXIII was tried afterwards, there was obvious political motive to firmly squash whatever claim he had, howevr specious.

That's the problem with rival papacies. everyone claims they're the "real" pope.

In this case, Benedict is doing no such thing. Only his brain-dead fan-boys are.

Of course, you don't care so long as you can get a re-match and I'm more than happy to give you everything you want and exactly what you deserve.

@F M Shyanguya All true. There are several problems, though.

1.) Benedict's fan-boys refuse to accept his resignation, no matter how many times he repeats it, clarifies, it, reinforces it, grovels and abases himself before Francis, none of that matters to them.

2.) V.R.S probably doesn't care one way or the other. Every month or so, he pops in, scans my posts, and starts an argument over something pointless. Earlier today he was claiming my use of "right and wrong" were "post modern" or some such rot.

When he got demolished in that argument, he returned to this last one...the "antipope without a pope" debate. He's just starting a fight so he can soothe his shame over previous losses, notably on this subject.

After he loses this one in another day or two, he'll go off and sulk in the Polish langauge section for a bit, and I'll be arguing the same thing with the same guy about the same thing before autumn.