What constitutes an antipope?

[Bataar]

Bataar:

porthos11:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Correct, the pope is judged by no one. However, if he had commited the sin of heresy, by Canon and Divine law, he wouldn’t be the pope. Committing the sin of heresy, yes, just the sin, does incur the penalty of excommunication.

“Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”. St. Francis de Sales, “The Catholic Controversy”

“…a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” St. Robert Bellarmine, “On the Roman Pontiff”

“An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.” A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

 

[Bataar]

A few more:

“The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope…(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” — St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

This the creation of bloggers and social network personalities.
They kind of make things like this up as they go.
If it sounds crazy, it probably is. :crazy_face:

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Fascinating rebuttal.

Those quotes are real enough. There’s more to it than those quotes, but they aren’t the words of deranged fools. The fact of the matter is that none of this has been put to the test so we don’t know how it would play out.

 

[CatholicWife1]

Manifest heresy can be defined in different ways depending on who you ask though. If the one claiming the pope was a heretic was not prudent or was full of pride then they could easily fall into the sin of detraction. Therefore, it makes sense that as the people under the pope’s authority to assume the pope is the true pope(unless there is another claimant to the office) based on Christ’s words that Hades (greek word meaning “unseen”) will not be victorious over his Church. Sedevacantists take Christ’s word out of context to bend scripture to their interpretation. We do not have the authority to cast judgment on the validity of his office. This is not to say that we cannot affirm that he in his human capacity he isn’t a sinner. But, rather, to say he is an antipope seems very presumptuous and conceited/pretentious.

Another thing I noticed is that sedevacantists operate mainly on hearsay and gossip. They back up their clams by taking quotes, and scripture out of context and also by gathering alleged quotes that cannot be verified. This is not how the Holy Spirit operates. He established a structure for the church on earth. Only the devil tries to insert himself where he doesn’t belong.

 

[Bataar]

Manifest heresy can be defined in different ways depending on who you ask though. If the one claiming the pope was a heretic was not prudent or was full of pride then they could easily fall into the sin of detraction. Therefore, it makes sense that as the people under the pope’s authority to assume the pope is the true pope(unless there is another claimant to the office) based on Christ’s words that Hades (greek word meaning “unseen”) will not be victorious over his Church. Sedevacantists take Christ’s word out of context to bend scripture to their interpretation. We do not have the authority to cast judgment on the validity of his office. This is not to say that we cannot affirm that he in his human capacity he isn’t a sinner. But, rather, to say he is an antipope seems very presumptuous and conceited/pretentious.

Another thing I noticed is that sedevacantists operate mainly on hearsay and gossip. They back up their clams by taking quotes, and scripture out of context and also by gathering alleged quotes that cannot be verified. This is not how the Holy Spirit operates. He established a structure for the church on earth. Only the devil tries to insert himself where he doesn’t belong.

Can you give an example of them taking quotes out of context or providing quotes that cannot be verified? I’m leaning sedevacantist myself so any information I can find that would lead me away from that direction, I would definitely be interested in seeing.

 

[CatholicWife1]

Here is a good video to watch about it if you are interested:

 

[CatholicWife1]

Also, I have heard it said that we should avoid things that drive us away from love of God and fellow man, and run to that which encourages love or God and man. Even the scriptures state that “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”. (1 Corinthians 13:1). The Sedevacantists sow fear, anger, and division in the name of orthodoxy. While there is much that has happened in the church over the past 60 years that is very concerning, I do not believe it warrants abandoning ship. The institution of the Church is the safe umbrella Christ gave us on earth. Going out from under that umbrella can only mean a propensity to fall into error.

 

[JimG]

The gospel of Pope Michael: Kansan stakes own claim to Catholic Church

Papal AudienceWho: Presentation by David Bawden, aka Pope Michael.Where: Big 12 Room, Kansas Union, Kansas University.When: 7 p.m. Monday.Admission: Free and open to the public.The pope drives a pickup truck.

www2.ljworld.com

 

[commenter]

The argument that a man ceases to to be pope if he becomes a heretic seems unworkable to me.
A heretic departs from true doctrine. True doctrine is based on Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium.

Almost nobody on CAF accuses a pope of bring unscriptural, those people likely go to other boards. On CAF Laity suggest a pope is going against Tradition.

But Tradition isn’t a stand-alone. The authoritative interpreter is the current pope, and usually the bishops in union with him. But Pope Pius 12 didn’t call an ecumenical council to define the Assumption.

If no ecumenical council happens to be meeting this year, (had to be called by this pope, or a future one) it seems impossible for the “bishops in communion with the (current) pope” to unite: first in interpreting a specific area of dogma, then to determine the current Pope’s position had strayed (not merely developed) it, to the point of being a heretic.

Does it take 100 percent of the bishops to determine that? Or something else?

If Pope Francis had called an ecumenical council, and they determined some point of doctrinal determination he didn’t like, he simply wouldn’t sign it. So if he still pope he couldn’t be declared a heretic.

 

[BartholomewB]

and they are claiming that the popes are antipope because they teach heresy.

And who do they claim is the true pope?

Sounds like the people who, when Trump won the election, went around saying, “He’s not my president.” Who was their president?

 

[Fauken]

That isn’t relevant to this topic. If you want to discuss Pope Francis and the idols, there are other topics on the forum regarding that, or you can start your own.

 

[CatholicWife1]

There are just so many loose ends that sedevacantism doesn’t tie up. I don’t think I could point them all out in one post. Additionally, if it were true and the pope and the rest of the clergy were invalid, then why would the Virgin Mary appear to a nun in Akita Japan, after Vatican II, in 1973, and ask her to pray for the pope and bishops? In asking for us to pray for the pope, Our lady validates that he is in fact the pope. There have been other apparitions since then as well and not one visionary has come out and said we are part of the wrong church, or God doesn’t want us to be obedient to the pope. Disobedience of God is a tool of the devil.

 

[Usagi]

Usually it has happened when there is already a legitimate Pope and a breakaway faction “elects” another guy they like better. With the exception of the Great Western Schism, it’s usually pretty obvious who’s the antipope. We even had a couple of self-proclaimed (and “elected” by relatives or followers) Popes living in the United States awhile back, though I think they have since died. I recall an article that hilariously described one of them as “reigning gloriously over the Church from a post-office box in Kalispell, Montana.”

 

[Usagi]

Sedevacantists claim we don’t currently have a legitimate Pope, and usually haven’t for a long time. (Their name literally means “the seat is vacant,” taken from the Latin term for the period between the death of one Pope and the election of the next. They would say that the sede vacante period has extended for decades at this point.)

I haven’t encountered many people who think that only Pope Francis is a false Pope, but I have heard noises made about Pope Benedict’s resignation being somehow forced or faked, taking advantage of the unusual fact that we have a living former Pope at this time.

I think people who make either of those claims are wrong and rather nutty, but they exist.

 

[dochawk]

No. A Pope who adheres to heresy is a heretic, not an antipope.

No, not even that.

If the Bishop of Rome were to become a heretic, it is generally (but not universally, it seems) agreed that he would cease to be the Bishop of Rome. (which would create a true mess for the Church, as the Pope would not be tried, and the leading theory would be that the Cardinals would conduct some kind of inquiry to determine whether he was the Pope, [as opposed to whether the Pope was wrong/in error/heretical]).

The fact of the matter is that none of this has been put to the test so we don’t know how it would play out.

As I write, a true mess . . .

The argument that a man ceases to to be pope if he becomes a heretic seems unworkable to me.

Yet at leas one Doctor of the Church disagrees with you on that . . .

(have I mentioned what a mess it would be if this were to happen?)

Does it take 100 percent of the bishops to determine that? Or something else?

A good question. Hopefully, we never learn the answer . . .

And the history for councils with antipopes ain’t so hot, either . . . . was it the Council of Pisa that, called to deal with two claimants, “resolved” the matter by naming a third!???

 

[Dovekin]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) commenter:

The argument that a man ceases to to be pope if he becomes a heretic seems unworkable to me.

They disagree that it is unworkable? How could it work?

This is a very tricky issue. It may be that when a Pope denies the faith, he ceases to be Pope. Even if that is true, there is no one who is able to make that judgment, except another pope. It cannot be another claimant, who would be just an antipope, so it would have to be a legitimate successor. The heretic pope would have to resign or die for a legitimate successor to exist.

100% of the bishops would work only if it was with and under the bishop of Rome. That does not sound workable.
There are some provisions for incapacitated popes, but they cannot be used for a lack of faith. Besides, JP2 spent the last 5 years of his papacy showing the value of an incapacitated pope.(not that he was incapacitated, but his sufferring had value.)

All that this “truth”, that an heretic ceases to be Pope, can do is undercut faith in the Pope. Is he the true pope? It is an unworkable doctrine, and likely untrue as a consequence.

 

[dochawk]

They disagree that it is unworkable? How could it work?

in other discussions, the best guess (and I don’t think there’s any suggestion that’s more than a guess) is that the cardinals would convene and conduct an inquiry as to whether or not thee was a pope.

Their position isn’t about workability, but simply that he cease to be pope. That doesn’t guarantee a pleasant, practical, or even any solution . . .

 

[Kaninchen]

Something of a tangent but something that I found puzzling (I’m Jewish, I’m allowed).

On one visit to Florence, I discovered that Pope John XXIII is interred in the ornate ‘Battistero di San Giovanni’ next to the famous and very ornate ‘Santa Maria del Fiore’, Florence’s cathedral.

Except he’s not Saint John XXIII, but the Antipope John XXIII. The explanation that his being there was the outcome of some kind of staring contest between the Medici and the Papacy somehow seems a bit unsatisfactory because a lot of water has flowed under the Ponte Vecchio since then.

 

[annem]

St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” — St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.

I doubt formal proceedings of any kind would be involved. I believe it is more likely that the church herself, that theologians, that other popes, will offer their judgement of a pope who became an anti-pope due to proclaiming heresy, during the following century. This seems to be what has happened in history, at least.