Question about popes/anti popes

[13pollitos]

Were all the antipopes known during their reign, or was it decided after the fact that they were actually antipopes? Is there any way, in modern times, that it would even be possible to have an antipope? It seems unlikely since the governments are set up so differently today. We have a great deal of media coverage and easy access to world events in a timely manner. I can somewhat see a chance with rival groups within the Vatican each backing a different pope, but even that seems unlikely with free and easy access to world news. I guess anything could be possible. Are there other ways it could be decided that someone was an antipope? Would someone outright preaching heresy (for instance, declaring Jesus was not God but Man alone, or Three gods instead of the Trinity, big things like that) make him an antipope? What about “smaller” statements (allowing women ordination, or the use of contraception)? Would that just make them a “bad” pope instead?

 

[Augustinian]

In either case he is no significance to the RCC and his reign is so minute

This is a good point. The modern anti-popes don’t’ have significant followings, and if it wasn’t for the internet and we were just chatting in real life instead, we’d be oblivious to their presence unless we lived across the street from them.

This medium just amplifies the voice of people who are otherwise insignificant.

 

[Genesis315]

Anti-popes always oppose the actual Pope. If the whole Church acknowledges a Pope, he is the Pope. This is why the Church considers the legitimacy of the Pope a dogmatic fact that she judges infallibly (see the second to last paragraph of section 11 in this document from the CDF). Here’s the rationale for this:

Hunters Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

As for a sitting Pope becoming an antipope by defecting from the Church, I don’t see why the process would be any different than when the chair becomes vacant in other circumstances.

It is part of the divine constitution of the Church that it have a primatial bishop, a visible head. It is also a dogmatic truth that this is accomplished by a perpetual succession of bishops in that office. It is further defined that the Church cannot choose to proceed without one. Given these things, the Church has to be able recognize when it is headless and have the means to restore its head. This is the case, whether the former head died, resigned, or defected from the Church. We take it for granted in the first two cases, but I don’t see why the same means and process wouldn’t apply in the third either. In that case, it is not a matter of a juridical judgment against the person or a deposition happening, but merely a recognition of headlessness (just like the Pope’s resignation was not “accepted,” but it still had to be recognized so that the Church could proceed to elect another). Why would it be any different?

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

It also follows that there must be divine assistance involved in this recognition, since if the Church could fail to recognize her headlessness, she could proceed as headless in perpetuity (and even possibly submit to the teaching and governance of someone other than her head), which is impossible given the above and the other divine promises made to the Church regarding her indefectibility and infallibility.

 

[13pollitos]

Thank you for the very thorough explanation!

I could see this part leading to problems and the rise of an antipope or multiple antipopes in modern times:

it is not a matter of a juridical judgment against the person or a deposition happening, but merely a recognition of headlessness

I could see groups within the Vatican, Bishops, or even lay people disagreeing with a pope and moving to “restore the head.” That is kind of scary.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

If claiming to be the Pope (of Rome) is sufficient for being an antipope then we likely have hundreds if not thousands of antipopes today in mental hospitals, and we’ve probably had them spanning the 2000 year history of the Church, and I’d argue that the term “antipope” is pretty meaningless then. I’d think to be an antipope you need a plausible claim to the papacy, and since we’ve recognized the College of Cardinals as being the ecclesial body that selects the Pope I’d contend that to be a true antipope one must not only claim to be the Pope but also have the backing of a significant number of cardinals. How many? I don’t know. But I do know “Pope Michael” and the like have zero cardinals backing them. Using this definition of antipope it also becomes clear that determining who is the legitimate pope and who is/are antipopes requires the passage of time. Barring divine revelation if the College of Cardinals are split on who is the legitimate successor of Peter, as they were during the Western Schism, then it’s impossible for anyone during that crisis to figure it out. The crisis must be settled, the college reunited, and then the matter of retroactively determining which individuals are to be included in the official succession can occur.

 

[13pollitos]

I’d think to be an antipope you need a plausible claim to the papacy, and since we’ve recognized the College of Cardinals as being the ecclesial body that selects the Pope I’d contend that to be a true antipope one must not only claim to be the Pope but also have the backing of a significant number of cardinals.

I especially agree with this.

Also, I think it would need to be decided by examining history well after the situation is over. Which makes it scarier. I could see many faithful observant Catholics lost and not knowing who to listen to. It could have severe implications for many generations afterwards.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Also, I think it would need to be decided by examining history well after the situation is over. Which makes it scarier. I could see many faithful observant Catholics lost and not knowing who to listen to. It could have severe implications for many generations afterwards.

Yup! And this is precisely what happened during the Western Schism.

 

[13pollitos]

Very, very true. I pray if it does occur in our lifetimes that we find ourselves on the right side of history.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

What do you mean? We know for a fact we’re on the right side of history because the crisis was settled and there is now only one pope!

Edit: “I pray if it does occur in our lifetimes…”

Sorry, I completely misread what you wrote. I’m working on about 4 hours of sleep.

 

[13pollitos]

Yes. IF it ever happens. I have no doubt we have only one pope and he is legitimate.

I misread all the time. No worries.