How do we know the current pope is not an anti-pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WesleyF

Guest
Simple question - How do we know the current pope is not an anti-pope?
 
Well, an anti-pope is a claimant to the Holy See in opposition to the canonically elected Pope.

Since our current Pope is the canonically elected Pope, he cannot be an anti-pope.
 
1ke said:
Well, an anti-pope is a claimant to the Holy See in opposition to the canonically elected Pope.

Since our current Pope is the canonically elected Pope, he cannot be an anti-pope.
Click to expand...
What is canonical election and how do we know he was canonically elected?
 
Canonical election is what occurs after the death of the previous pope. A conclave of the College of Cardinals is called, and, after many prayers specifically invoking the Holy Spirit, they vote on a proposed candidate. They are literally isolated and locked away from the rest of the world while they do this, historically, to avoid outside political influence; attempts to do so have been made in earlier times.

I’m pretty sure that they only vote twice a day during the course of the conclave. The ballots are collected and tabulated, and if a consensus is not reached, are burned in a stove with (I believe) charcoal that produces black smoke, which signifies to the world outside, and the people in St. Peter’s Square, that a pope has not been elected. If the ballots indicate a consensus, they are burned in the stove, and I’m not clear on whether some substance is added, but the smoke is white, denoting that the next pope has been elected by the cardinals. It is an article of faith that the college of cardinals is functioning under the direction of the Holy Spirit. A pope elected by the college of cardinals cannot be an antipope, that is a pretender to the Seat of Peter.

We know, for example, that the current pope was canonically elected: CNN and other news outlets covered the event live from St. Peter’s Square.
 
The legitimacy of the Pope is an example of what is called a “dogmatic fact.” while not a revealed truth, a dogmatic fact is integrally tied to revealed truth. Since unity with the teaching of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for knowing what is revealed truth, the Church must therefore recognize the Roman Pontiff. The entire Church cannot fail to recognize its legitimate head or follow a false head.

An old theological manual (Tanquerey’s) puts it this way:
255 d. The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.
Click to expand...
Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.
Click to expand...
That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain. For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.
Click to expand...
 
Fact:

Pope Benedict was officially elected by a Papal Conclave of Cardinals in the Vatican on Tuesday, April 19, 2005.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4462077.stm
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been elected as the Pope - the head of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
Taking the name Pope Benedict XVI, the 78-year-old German appeared on the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica.
Click to expand...
His arrival was greeted by loud cheers from the many thousands of pilgrims who had packed St Peter’s Square as news of his election spread across Rome.
Click to expand...
He was chosen on the third round of votes by the 115 cardinals meeting to select Pope John Paul II’s successor.
Click to expand...
That’s how we know.

To disbelieve this is grave error. To believe that Pope Benedict is an anti-pope is grave error. To repeat it is to perpetrate grave error.
jimmyakin.com/2011/06/how-useful-is-this-argument-against-sedevacantism.html
Click to expand...
The quotation from Vatican I is:
Click to expand...
*f anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Since the time of Vatican I the canonical penalty of anathema—which was a special kind of excommunication done with a particular ceremony—has been abolished, so nobody today is under the penalty of anathema even if they do violate this canon.
Click to expand...
However, this canon defines a point that appears to be divinely revealed. The obstinate doubt or denial of a doctrine that is both divinely revealed and infallibly defined by the Church as such is a heresy, and thus under certain conditions a Catholic who falls afoul of this canon can indeed excommunicate himself (and automatically so). This just isn’t the kind of excommunication formerly known as anathema.*
Click to expand...
 
Genesis315 said:
Since unity with the teaching of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for knowing what is revealed truth, the Church must therefore recognize the Roman Pontiff. The entire Church cannot fail to recognize its legitimate head or follow a false head.
Click to expand...
Define “entire church”.
 
WesleyF said:
To answer Sedavecantists and Protestants who use Sedavecantist arguments.
Click to expand...
Read the Jimmy Akin article I linked to. It’s good.

BTW It would’ve kinda helped if you had mentioned this in your opening post.

You had me, at least, thinking you were about to go on an sedvacantist rant, and I nearly reported this thread to the mods.
 
1ke said:
Well, an anti-pope is a claimant to the Holy See in opposition to the canonically elected Pope.

Since our current Pope is the canonically elected Pope, he cannot be an anti-pope.
Click to expand...
http://media4.picsearch.com/is?yr_fR7T6K1R_mbFYMe6ij1idLxnzH2WpqLhIQKVrcC8

He can speak 7 different languages … but it’s nice to know there’s SOMETHING he can’t do!

Oh yeah, and teach erroneously on faith and morals when he speaks ex-Cathedra.

That’s TWO! Two things he can’t do.

He’s not even an anti-pope when he goes to confession. Just … uh … humble?! 🙂
 
triumphguy said:
Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
Sedavecantists make the claim that they are also Roman Catholics. So how does this argument work. Moreover a lot of Roman Catholics don’t practice their faith, so how does the infallibility of the church work in practice?
 
Because you’re not Roman Catholic if you deny the Papacy.

You’re not a vegetarian if you deny vegetables right?

Simples.

Have you read the article yet?
 
triumphguy said:
Because you’re not Roman Catholic if you deny the Papacy.
Click to expand...
But that assumes that the current pope is a valid pope. It’s one thing to deny the papacy and quite another to say that a pope might actually be an anti-pope. There have been anti-popes in history and I am sure many Roman Catholics (including some Cardinals) honestly believed that they were legitimate popes. So how does the infallibility of the church work in this case?
triumphguy said:
Have you read the article yet?
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it all. Very helpful.
 
The Antipopes in those days had Kings, princes and Cardinals behind them.

Eg., the Second Avignon Papacy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy

Show me a king (or modern day state) which has official diplomatic relations with an alternative “pope.”

Where are their palaces? etc.,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top