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

[WesleyF]

The Antipopes in those days had Kings, princes and Cardinals behind them.

No matter who is behind the anti-popes, we do know that a vast number of the faithful were misled into believing that they were true popes (or were they misled?). So it seems to me that we have a problem here - the entire church wasn’t united in their knowledge of who the pope was. But then how would that satisfy what was quoted-

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.

If the “church” means “Roman Catholics” then the church did make a mistake in the above case for many Roman Catholics believed the anti-pope was the true pope.

 

[Genesis315]

Let’s look at a concrete example. Pius XII definitively declares that the whole Church must believe the Assumption with divine faith. Do we therefore have to? The answer to this question hinges on whether Pius XII is the Roman Pontiff. That is why the Church must know who the Roman Pontiff is.

The true response is, since Pius XII was accepted by the whole Church as Pope, he is and therefore we must accept his judgment. The sedevacantist logic would be this: if I personally disagree that the Assumption is a truth of divine faith, then I can say Pius XII has defined an error and, since a Pope can’t define error, he must not be Pope. This assumes, however, that prior to this, the whole Church had accepted and followed a false head and therefore had defected into schism.

For the case at hand, no one was a sedevacantist until after the new order Mass was promulgated and some folks didn’t like it and believed it to be evil. Prior to that, all accepted Paul VI as Pope. Instead of putting their own opinion aside and accepting the judgement of the Pope that the Missal was a Catholic rite, they simply decided he must not be Pope, and then went back to look for ways to justify claiming he wasn’t Pope. Of course, this forgets the fact that the entire Church, bar none, accepted him as Pope prior to this official act.

Following the sedevacantist logic, the legitimacy of all Popes are suspect. There’s a guy with a website who has taken this to its logical conclusion and, because he agrees with the Jansenists, has declared all the Popes who definitively condemned Jansenist doctrines to be not real Popes. The logic descends to absurdity. Rather than putting aside their own opinions and accepting the judgment of Popes and the councils teaching in union with them, those who disagreed should instead have declared the Popes to not be real Popes. Who knows, maybe St. Leo was not a real Pope or maybe St. Pius V was not a real Pope, etc., etc. and their decisions are actually erroneous?

If the Church can’t recognize her head, she cannot be governed or taught. The Church is turned upside down and every laymen is made supreme judge, rather than the Roman Pontiff being the supreme judge.

 

[Genesis315]

No matter who is behind the anti-popes, we do know that a vast number of the faithful were misled into believing that they were true popes (or were they misled?). So it seems to me that we have a problem here - the entire church wasn’t united in their knowledge of who the pope was. But then how would that satisfy what was quoted-

If the “church” means “Roman Catholics” then the church did make a mistake in the above case for many Roman Catholics believed the anti-pope was the true pope.

\

In, say, the case of the Great Western Schism, a moral unanimity of the Church did not fail to recognize its head. The sedevacantist argument implies that, not just a moral unanimity, by an absolute unanimity was deceived for a time and even accepted erroneous decrees from the fake Pope for a while–in other words, the whole Church defected for some period of time, until the sedevacantists came up with their “theories” for denying authoritative papal decisions they don’t agree with.

 

[WesleyF]

For the case at hand, no one was a sedevacantist until after the new order Mass was promulgated and some folks didn’t like it and believed it to be evil. Prior to that, all accepted Paul VI as Pope. Instead of putting their own opinion aside and accepting the judgement of the Pope that the Missal was a Catholic rite, they simply decided he must not be Pope, and then went back to look for ways to justify claiming he wasn’t Pope.

Good point.

In, say, the case of the Great Western Schism, a moral unanimity of the Church did not fail to recognize its head.

What do you mean by moral unanimity?

 

[Timothy_Garber]

Roman Catholics.

AHEM…

(Large, over-the-top clearing of the throat)

 

[Genesis315]

What do you mean by moral unanimity?

It’s a standard the Church has used in a variety of circumstances. A doctrine is true if taught by a moral unanimity of the Fathers or a moral unanimity of the bishops together with the Pope or a moral unanimity of ecumenical Council Fathers, etc. It means there can be some nominal exceptions, but the unity in teaching is otherwise overwhelmingly agreed upon.

In the case at hand, no bishops were sedevacantists and only a few priests were (the sedevacantists get their bishops from lines outside the Church, like the Duarte Costa line or through other illicit means). The unanimity in this case is far better than most ecumenical Council decisions and therefore we can rely on it.

It should also be noted, that for sedevacantists, it is not just about the Pope, but the Church subject to him, which they claim is a false Church. Yet, this Church is visible and is recognized by not only a moral unanimity of Catholics, but the whole world, as a continuation of the same Church subject to, say, Pius XII, while there is not even agreement among sedevacantists as to what the Catholic Church is.

 

[Jennifoo]

I absolutely love Pope Benedict XVI! His writings are fantastic. I especially love Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi.

 

[JLM28]

He is Pro-life.

 

[mileojule]

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.

 

[triumphguy]

AHEM…

(Large, over-the-top clearing of the throat)

 

[Timothy_Garber]

Thank you for noticing! I didn’t know if I had cleared my throat loud enough.

 

[thistle]

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?

Yes, I read it all. Very helpful.

Is that a joke? Are you really a Catholic?? If you are your knowledge of the Church is sadly lacking!! Were you not catechised?
Have you read the CCC?

 

[WesleyF]

Is that a joke? Are you really a Catholic?? If you are your knowledge of the Church is sadly lacking!! Were you not catechised?
Have you read the CCC?

Did you read the earlier posts in the thread?

 

[WesleyF]

It’s a standard the Church has used in a variety of circumstances. A doctrine is true if taught by a moral unanimity of the Fathers or a moral unanimity of the bishops together with the Pope or a moral unanimity of ecumenical Council Fathers, etc. It means there can be some nominal exceptions, but the unity in teaching is otherwise overwhelmingly agreed upon.

In the case at hand, no bishops were sedevacantists and only a few priests were (the sedevacantists get their bishops from lines outside the Church, like the Duarte Costa line or through other illicit means). The unanimity in this case is far better than most ecumenical Council decisions and therefore we can rely on it.

It should also be noted, that for sedevacantists, it is not just about the Pope, but the Church subject to him, which they claim is a false Church. Yet, this Church is visible and is recognized by not only a moral unanimity of Catholics, but the whole world, as a continuation of the same Church subject to, say, Pius XII, while there is not even agreement among sedevacantists as to what the Catholic Church is.

Hmmm, so would it be fair to say that moral unanimity roughly means a “vast majority”? Or does it mean that “no one seriously denies this”?