... all someone has to do is believe they’re a Christian in order to be a Christian and that idea is demonstrably and unequivocally false.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that.
Whoever gets the 2/3 majority needed is the person that was chosen by God. Full stop.
And that's actually demonstrably wrong.
The papacy had resided in Avignon since 1309, but Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome in 1377. The Catholic Church split in 1378 after Gregory XI's death and Urban VI's election.
This makes Urban VI Pope.
A group of French cardinals declared his election invalid and elected Clement VII as pope.
Now who is the rightful Pope? Urban VI or Clement VII? If your "full stop" applies, then the answer is Urban VI, even if the French cardinals were correct that his election was invalid. Or do invalid elections not count, which would make Clement VII the rightful Pope?
After [over forty years and] several attempts at reconciliation, the Council of Pisa (1409) declared that both rivals were illegitimate and elected a third purported pope [Alexander V].
There's another election - is Alexander V the rightful Pope now?
The schism was finally resolved [nine more years later] when the Pisan claimant Antipope John XXIII called the Council of Constance (1414–1418). The Council arranged the renunciation of both Roman pope Gregory XII [whose election was handed down through Urban VI] and Pisan antipope John XXIII [who was elected after Alexander V]. The Avignon antipope Benedict XIII [he was elected after Clement VII] was excommunicated, while Pope Martin V [finally, back to one Pope] was elected and reigned from Rome.
In 1409, who was the rightful Pope? Was it Benedict XIII, or Gregory XII, or Alexander V?
…failed to demonstrate that
I have not failed to demonstrate that. You’re just ignoring the responses. By your definition, Satan is a Christian because he believes in Jesus. He’s met him, after all.
And that’s actually…
False. You’re injecting politics into the question. Based on Catholic doctrine and Papal Infallability, both of which I’ve already agreed are pointless and circular, Urban VI is the “real” Pope since he was the one that was chosen by God. The French Cardinals would have been the blasphemers in this case for arguing that God was wrong in choosing Urban. You can extrapolate the rest from that.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Since Urban VI was the rightful Pope, it follows that the other claimaints were not, and that the successors of Urban VI (Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and finally Gregory XII) were also rightful Popes.
But Gregory XII papacy was renunciated. Even though he was the rightful Pope, chosen by God through election. Doesn't this mean (by your own "rules") that the entire Catholiuc Church as it stands today is not Catholic, because they've all been revering and listening to false Popes since ~1418?
They’re not my “rules” but, yes… By the Catholic’s own dogma, the entire Catholic Church would not be Catholic since the people went against the wishes of God. That being said, since none of it makes sense and the points don’t matter, the Catholics can also hand-wave the whole contest away by saying that God guided it to happen through “mysterious ways” that we don’t understand. Again, I’m not arguing that any of it makes sense. I’m just arguing that, by their own rules, there’s no such thing as a “false Pope”.
Also, the word you’re looking for is renounced. The transitive form of renunciation is “renounced”.
You're arguing pretty hard for something that even you claim doesn't make sense. Now that we both agree that what you've been saying doesn't make sense - which is kind of what I've been driving at - I have to get back to work.
I’m arguing against what you said. Period. What you said was wrong, plain and simple. I don’t have to agree that any of it makes sense to know that what you said wasn’t accurate. And I’m not agreeing that what I said doesn’t make sense. I’m agreeing that Christianity and the rules of Catholic dogma don’t make sense. I don’t have to agree that the Pope is infallible and that people drink the actual transubstantiated blood of their figurehead to call out someone saying that “they don’t think he’s actually infallible” or “they don’t think it’s actually his blood” is not true. Catholic belief dictates a bunch of things that I think are nonsense. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.
As long as we both agree that what you're saying doesn't make sense, I'm good.
We don’t.
Again, I’m not arguing that any of it makes sense.
Yes we do.
No, we don’t. Your statement was that what I was saying doesn’t make sense. That’s different than what Catholics say.
Catholic belief dictates a bunch of things that I think are nonsense. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.
Your statement was that what I was saying doesn’t make sense.
I didn't say you believed what you were saying. I said that you agreed that what you were saying doesn't make sense.
Please, give me another opportunity to quote you.
I’d rather not. I’d rather you were just clear with the things you say. As evidenced by our entire interaction from the start, though, that doesn’t seem to be your forte.
I've been entirely clear. You're the one who decided to take the side that doesn't make sense.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that.
And that's actually demonstrably wrong.
This makes Urban VI Pope.
Now who is the rightful Pope? Urban VI or Clement VII? If your "full stop" applies, then the answer is Urban VI, even if the French cardinals were correct that his election was invalid. Or do invalid elections not count, which would make Clement VII the rightful Pope?
There's another election - is Alexander V the rightful Pope now?
In 1409, who was the rightful Pope? Was it Benedict XIII, or Gregory XII, or Alexander V?
I have not failed to demonstrate that. You’re just ignoring the responses. By your definition, Satan is a Christian because he believes in Jesus. He’s met him, after all.
False. You’re injecting politics into the question. Based on Catholic doctrine and Papal Infallability, both of which I’ve already agreed are pointless and circular, Urban VI is the “real” Pope since he was the one that was chosen by God. The French Cardinals would have been the blasphemers in this case for arguing that God was wrong in choosing Urban. You can extrapolate the rest from that.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Since Urban VI was the rightful Pope, it follows that the other claimaints were not, and that the successors of Urban VI (Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and finally Gregory XII) were also rightful Popes.
But Gregory XII papacy was renunciated. Even though he was the rightful Pope, chosen by God through election. Doesn't this mean (by your own "rules") that the entire Catholiuc Church as it stands today is not Catholic, because they've all been revering and listening to false Popes since ~1418?
They’re not my “rules” but, yes… By the Catholic’s own dogma, the entire Catholic Church would not be Catholic since the people went against the wishes of God. That being said, since none of it makes sense and the points don’t matter, the Catholics can also hand-wave the whole contest away by saying that God guided it to happen through “mysterious ways” that we don’t understand. Again, I’m not arguing that any of it makes sense. I’m just arguing that, by their own rules, there’s no such thing as a “false Pope”.
Also, the word you’re looking for is renounced. The transitive form of renunciation is “renounced”.
You're arguing pretty hard for something that even you claim doesn't make sense. Now that we both agree that what you've been saying doesn't make sense - which is kind of what I've been driving at - I have to get back to work.
I’m arguing against what you said. Period. What you said was wrong, plain and simple. I don’t have to agree that any of it makes sense to know that what you said wasn’t accurate. And I’m not agreeing that what I said doesn’t make sense. I’m agreeing that Christianity and the rules of Catholic dogma don’t make sense. I don’t have to agree that the Pope is infallible and that people drink the actual transubstantiated blood of their figurehead to call out someone saying that “they don’t think he’s actually infallible” or “they don’t think it’s actually his blood” is not true. Catholic belief dictates a bunch of things that I think are nonsense. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.
As long as we both agree that what you're saying doesn't make sense, I'm good.
We don’t.
Yes we do.
No, we don’t. Your statement was that what I was saying doesn’t make sense. That’s different than what Catholics say.
I didn't say you believed what you were saying. I said that you agreed that what you were saying doesn't make sense.
Please, give me another opportunity to quote you.
I’d rather not. I’d rather you were just clear with the things you say. As evidenced by our entire interaction from the start, though, that doesn’t seem to be your forte.
I've been entirely clear. You're the one who decided to take the side that doesn't make sense.