What constitutes an antipope?

[Dovekin]

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.

If I am understanding you, the judgment can only come later, by a subsequent pope or other group. I agree, but I think the likelihood of that ever happening is pretty low. Perhaps they would ignore the erromeous teaching, but would a Pope really stand up and tell people they cannot trust papal teaching? It seems counterproductive.

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 . . .

That’s not what you said in your last note. Oh well.

There are 2 scenarios:

1. God protects popes from teaching error.
2. A pope can teach error, but he stops being pope even though no one knows if that has happened.

Those are pretty different positions. Was Pius IX a heretic when he taught the Immaculate Conception? It seems like a possibility in the 2nd scenario.

 

[Dovekin]

I think John XXIIIa was one of the 3 popes/antipopes who stepped down in deference to a united papacy. There was never a definitive statement of which one of the 3 was the true pope, but John XXIIIb excluded the earlier John when he did not count him as a predecessor. Now we know he was an antipope.

Next you can go to St Peter’s in Rome and see the monument to the Royal Stuarts, James III of England and his sons.

 

[dochawk]

That’s not what you said in your last note. Oh well.

To clarify: the argument that he would no longer be pope if he fell into heresy is workable, having been made by at least one doctor of the church.

The situation it would create, however, may not be workable or have solution short of waiting for the possibly former pope to die so that the see is clearly vacant.

I’m not going to hazard a judgment on any papal teachings, past or present . . .

 

[Kaninchen]

Next you can go to St Peter’s in Rome and see the monument to the Royal Stuarts, James III of England and his sons.

Been outside, seen the crowds, taken the photos. Not seen the Pretender monument, is it inside?

 

[Dovekin]

It is inside, above their graves.

Henry, the younger son, was known as the Cardinal Duke of York iirc. He worked in the Vatican for 50 some years, rising to Dean of the Cardinals. He no doubt arranged for his family to be honored in St Peter’s. It just seems so odd.

You cannot always trust the history you read on monuments. Or anywhere else I suppose.

 

[Kaninchen]

You cannot always trust the history you read on monuments. Or anywhere else I suppose.

Oddly, a fair proportion of my ancestors would have been around (Italy, including Rome) at the time - doing their best to avoid Cardinals.

 

[commenter]

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.”

“If it were possible for a circle to have four sides, then it would be a rectangle”. Ok. But it’s not possible. The end, at least in that Pope’s lifetime.

I would reword the question: if it were possible and measurable by us that a pope is teaching heresy, then he would cease to be Pope. But the Pope himself is the ultimate interpreter of Tradition for his time. There is no higher authority in his lifetime to over rule his interpretation of Tradition. The Cardinals are convened by a pope, unless he dies. councils of bishops as well. So it’s not measureable by us; certainly not measureable by the Trad websites, who are raising this question.

I believe the Holy Spirit would prevent that anyway.

 

[DaveBj]

So – if a pope touches an antipope, do they annihilate each other? Asking for a friend.

D

 

[dochawk]

“If it were possible for a circle to have four sides, then it would be a rectangle”.

if Bellarmine or Ligouri had written that it were possible for a square to have four sides, I would consider the possibility . . .

So – if a pope touches an antipope, do they annihilate each other? Asking for a friend.

This would explain the recent interest in very strong magnetic fields at the Vatican universities . . . :crazy_face:

 

[Usagi]

A Pope cannot teach error as something to be believed by the entire Church.

A Pope could personally hold, and teach in a lesser capacity, things considered heretical (though the position articulated here is that by so doing he would cease to be Pope).

The Immaculate Conception was never a heresy, just a commonly believed but not certain teaching, so elevating it to the status of a dogmatic teaching is not the same thing as teaching heresy.

 

[Dovekin]

A Pope cannot teach error as something to be believed by the entire Church.

So there are some teachings that a Pope cannot get wrong.

A Pope could personally hold, and teach in a lesser capacity, things considered heretical (though the position articulated here is that by so doing he would cease to be Pope).

Even so, an heretical pope cannot teach error as something to be believed by the entire church. Or could he, since he is no longer pope? He would still be in his position, wearing his robes, since no one knows he is no longer pope.

It just does not seem like a workable idea. It might be true, but it only works as a way to disparage papal teaching.

 

[annem]

Even so, an heretical pope cannot teach error as something to be believed by the entire church. Or could he, since he is no longer pope? He would still be in his position, wearing his robes, since no one knows he is no longer pope.

You make a good argument. I have no idea how to grapple with the problem. How do you factor in St Paul standing up to the first pope, Peter, and rebuking him?

 

[Usagi]

St. Peter was not teaching error to the whole Church; he was practicing it by his own actions. (He was basically caught in the middle between St. James, head of the formerly-Jewish believers in Jerusalem, who was like, “Peter, did your mama teach you to eat with Gentiles?” and St. Paul, who had made many Gentile converts, who was more like, “Dude, they’re all Christians, right? Are you gonna discriminate against some of the flock forever?”)