What constitutes an antipope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicWife1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicWife1

Guest
What makes a pope an antipope? If the pope was to teach false teachings would he become an antipope? There seems to be a traditional sect that does not follow the popes since Vatican II and they are claiming that the popes are antipope because they teach heresy.
 
If he installed by the holy Roman emperor he most likely is an antipope
 
CatholicWife1 said:
What makes a pope an antipope? If the pope was to teach false teachings would he become an antipope? There seems to be a traditional sect that does not follow the popes since Vatican II and they are claiming that the popes are antipope because they teach heresy.
Click to expand...
It’s very simple. An antipope is a “pope” who is not actually a Pope.

There are many different schools of thought on the concept of a pertinacious, notorious public heretic either not being able to become a Pope in the first place, or what is more problematical, ceasing to be Pope while he is in office.

What is certain is that the Pope, assuming he is Pope, can be judged by no one. The Church can make a judgement on the matter after a Pope has died, but not while he is still Pope.

Let me be clear that I accept this man Francis as a true Pope, acknowledging that many people of good will have expressed reservations about various things he has said and done. I am just stating a fact and am not going to attempt to parse the matter here. (For one thing, I have things I have to do in town today, and must end my session now.)
 
CatholicWife1 said:
What makes a pope an antipope? If the pope was to teach false teachings would he become an antipope? There seems to be a traditional sect that does not follow the popes since Vatican II and they are claiming that the popes are antipope because they teach heresy.
Click to expand...
No. A Pope who adheres to heresy is a heretic, not an antipope. It is impossible for a Pope to teach heresy; the charism of infallibility would prevent it (by death if necessary). However it is very much possible for a Pope to utter heresy if he’s speaking as a mere theologian, private person, or issuing disciplinary rulings.

An antipope is a claimant to the papal throne, and could even have the full appearance of occupying it and could even be internationally recognized as Pope, but whose election was invalid. Antipopes are not automatically evil men; some had become antipopes in good faith, sincerely believing themselves to be the real Pope. And the very first antipope is a canonized saint.

A validly elected Pope who speaks heresy outside of his teaching capacity is not an antipope. He is just likely a bad Pope.
 
How is a pope invalidly elected? Wouldn’t that be nearly impossible to determine in good faith since the conclave is secret?
 
CatholicWife1 said:
How is a pope invalidly elected? Wouldn’t that be nearly impossible to determine in good faith since the conclave is secret?
Click to expand...
Probably not these days because of the safeguards. But during the ancient times when Popes were elected by acclamation, or during the Great Western Schism, the confusion did result in people not knowing who the real Pope was. It had to take an Ecumenical Council to figure the mess out.
 
An antipope is basically anyone who isn’t Pope, but claims to be. During certain periods, some had considerable political backing.

A Pope, as a human being with free will, can defect from the Church through heresy–breaking the visible bonds of unity–like anyone else. He would then cease to be Pope. Think of an extreme example, like a Pope formally converting to Islam. It would be clear to all that he is no longer Pope.

But just being wrong is not heresy–there must be manifest obstinacy. But if the Church were to lose her visible head–just like in the case of the death or resignation of the Pope–she would always recognize it and always have the power to proceed to elect a new one. The whole Church cannot follow a false head or proceed with out one.

The validity of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (cf. CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profesio Fidei 11). The reasoning for this is explained well below:

Hunter’s 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.
Click to expand...
More detail here in an older post of mine:
40.png
How a Pope ceases to be Pope Traditional Catholicism
A Pope declaring an erroneous belief to be held by the entire Church is different from the Pope personally defecting from the Church. The Pope can sin–including the sins of separation–like anyone else. A Pope who defected through heresy would cease to be Pope. The Church “is an entity with visible delineation” (Lumen Gentium 8) and the Pope is its “visible head” (Lumen Gentium 18) and “visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 23). Finally…
Click to expand...
Sedevacantist communities lack the papacy both in act and potency (they freely admit to being unable to elect a new Pope) and lack various other constituent elements the true Church must have until the end of time.
 
Last edited:
CatholicWife1 said:
What makes a pope an antipope? If the pope was to teach false teachings would he become an antipope? There seems to be a traditional sect that does not follow the popes since Vatican II and they are claiming that the popes are antipope because they teach heresy.
Click to expand...
Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ANTIPOPE. A false claimant to the Holy See in opposition to the Pope canonically elected. There have been more than thirty in the Catholic Church’s history. (Etym. Latin antipapa ; Greek anti , against + papas , father.)
 
CatholicWife1 said:
How is a pope invalidly elected? Wouldn’t that be nearly impossible to determine in good faith since the conclave is secret?
Click to expand...
There a guy in Kansas who claims to be Pope Michael. He was elected in the “papal conclave” consisting of his parents and three other people in addition to himself.

Antipope, invalidly elected.
 
Probably the most significant safeguard is the Papacy can no longer be overawed by a secular power. Historically, Anti-popes were installed in defiance of the majority of bishops by an Emperor; either the Holy Roman Emperor or the King of France. The Lateran Treaties made the Vatican an independent state, and thus the election of its head of state is solely up to the College of Cardinals.
 
1ke said:
He was elected in the “papal conclave” consisting of his parents and three other people in addition to himself.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

How to know your parents mean it when they say you’re special.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
Antipopes are not automatically evil men; some had become antipopes in good faith, sincerely believing themselves to be the real Pope. And the very first antipope is a canonized saint.
Click to expand...
At least one anti-pope became the actual Pope at a later time.
 
If a pope were to commit the sin of heresy, he would immediately cease to be a member of the church. A person is not a member of the church cannot hold any office in the church so unless he resigned the papacy, he would be an antipope.
 
Last edited:
Bataar said:
If a pope were to commit the sin of heresy, he would immediately cease to be a member of church. A person is not a member of the church cannot hold any office in the church so unless he resigned the papacy, he would be an antipope.
Click to expand...
We keep hearing this tired little line.

This is not true, even if the Pope has committed objective heresy in his private capacity. Mere material heresy does not detach one from the Church. Only the canonical crime of heresy does, which requires a quality of obstinacy. A Pope is not subject to the penal laws of the Church, and so cannot be tried in his own courts.
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
Bataar:
If a pope were to commit the sin of heresy, he would immediately cease to be a member of church. A person is not a member of the church cannot hold any office in the church so unless he resigned the papacy, he would be an antipope.
Click to expand...
We keep hearing this tired little line.

This is not true, even if the Pope has committed objective heresy in his private capacity. Mere material heresy does not detach one from the Church. Only the canonical crime of heresy does, which requires a quality of obstinacy. A Pope is not subject to the penal laws of the Church, and so cannot be tried in his own courts.
Click to expand...
That is not true. It is merely the sin of heresy, not the canonical crime of heresy that removes one from the church. It’s similar to the case of the sin of abortion. If a Catholic has an abortion, they are ipso facto excommunicated. A priest cannot simply absolve them in confession, they need to get permission from the bishop. Obviously this person hasn’t been convicted of any canonical crime, but they are outside of the church. The same is true for the sin of heresy.
 
Last edited:
Here is the definition of heresy:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

Canon law says: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” (CIC 1364)

Obviously there is a difference between material and formal heresy, but since we’re talking a pope here, I’m going to assume he would know the truth in this imaginary case which would make the heresy formal.
 
Last edited:
Bataar said:
40.png
porthos11:
40.png
Bataar:
If a pope were to commit the sin of heresy, he would immediately cease to be a member of church. A person is not a member of the church cannot hold any office in the church so unless he resigned the papacy, he would be an antipope.
Click to expand...
We keep hearing this tired little line.

This is not true, even if the Pope has committed objective heresy in his private capacity. Mere material heresy does not detach one from the Church. Only the canonical crime of heresy does, which requires a quality of obstinacy. A Pope is not subject to the penal laws of the Church, and so cannot be tried in his own courts.
Click to expand...
That is not true. It is merely the sin of heresy, not the canonical crime of heresy that removes one from the church. It’s similar to the case of the sin of abortion. If a Catholic has an abortion, they are ipso facto excommunicated. A priest cannot simply absolve them in confession, they need to get permission from the bishop. Obviously this person hasn’t been convicted of any canonical crime, but they are outside of the church. The same is true for the sin of heresy.
Click to expand...
Not the Pope.

The Pope is judged by no one.

And you cannot separate penalties from canonical crimes. Only crimes incur penalties such as excommunication. “Mere” sins do not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top