What Happens At The Moment A Pope Becomes An Anti Pope ?

[Perigrina]

Bowing towards and kissing objects are signs of reverance in Catholicism and Islam. The Patriarch with the Pope admitted it was not an empty gesture but out of respect for Muslims. So the Pope respected the Quran as those who believe in it. Does that mean we can actively participate in non-Catholic ceremonies? The past teaching was that doing do was forbidden, and any Catholic found doing it was suspect of heresy. The action in itself was scandalous, see 1 Cor 8:9 etc about that. It's simply inexcusable to try to justify this act. I'm not saying the Holy Father was not the Pope, I'm saying he was wrong, and the damage from that and similar actions are still reverberating.


If a Pope Said, "the council of Trent taught the transubstantiation but I teach the Eucharist is nothing but a symbol" that is formal and not material heresy. It is possible to know formal from innocent error or material error.

 

I do not see how participating in non-Catholic worship logically follows from showing respect to non-Catholics.  We are supposed to be respectful of others. 

 

Yes, I can see that it is theoretically possible for a pope to commit formal heresy if he directly contradicts defined doctrine.  I find it difficult to imagine such a situation occuring.

[Perigrina]

What if he was clearly wrong, when measured against Tradition? Or if significant doubt remained despite his own opinion?

 

Since the pope is the final authority when it comes to measuring statements against Tradition, how could the doubts of others make a difference?

[Nihil Obstat]

Since the pope is the final authority when it comes to measuring statements against Tradition, how could the doubts of others make a difference?

I think that is the problem then. The pope is not the final authority, because Tradition exists separate from the See of Rome. Objectively speaking, the pope can be wrong measured against Tradition. He is an interpreter of Tradition, the highest interpreter on earth (when he is interpreting faithfully), but that does not mean that Tradition is subordinate to his interpretation.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[KnightofChrist]

The Holy Pontiff is a servant of Holy Tradition, not the other way round.

[Perigrina]

I think that is the problem then. The pope is not the final authority, because Tradition exists separate from the See of Rome. Objectively speaking, the pope can be wrong measured against Tradition. He is an interpreter of Tradition, the highest interpreter on earth (when he is interpreting faithfully), but that does not mean that Tradition is subordinate to his interpretation.

 

I am just not seeing how your point would play out in practice.  Let's say the pope and cardinals disagree on whether a statement is in conformity with Tradition.  Whose understanding of Tradition would prevail?

[Nihil Obstat]

Not sure if you got around to reading it yet, but this passage from the first appendix of the first volume of Davies' Apologia describes the 'fall' of Pope Liberius, when he gave into weakness and condemned Athanasius unjustly:
 

The Fall of Pope Liberius
On 17 May 352, Liberius was consecrated as Pope. He immediately found himself involved in the Arian dispute.

He appealed to Constantius to do justice to Athanasius. The imperial reply was to summon the bishops of Gaul to a council at Arles in 353-354, where, under threat of exile, they agreed to a condemnation of Athanasius. Even Liberius' legate yielded. When the Pope continued to press for a council more widely representative, it was assembled by Constantius at Milan in 355. It was threatened by a violent mob and the Emperor's personal intimidation: "My will," he exclaimed, "is canon law." He prevailed with all save three of the bishops. Athanasius was once more condemned and Arians admitted to communion. Once more papal legates surrendered and Liberius himself was ordered to sign. When he refused to do so, or even to accept the Emperor's offerings, he was seized and carried off to the imperial presence; when he stood firm for Athanasius' rehabilitation, he was exiled to Thrace (355) where he remained for two years. Meanwhile, a Roman deacon, Felix, was intruded into his see. The people refused to recognize the imperial anti-pope. Athanasius himself was driven into hiding and his flock abandoned to the persecution of an Arianizing intruder. When he visited Rome in 357, Constantius was besieged by clamorous demands for Liberius' restoration. Subservient bishops around the court at Sirmium subscribed in turn to doctrinal formulas more or less ambiguous or unorthodox. In 358, a formula drawn up by Basil of Ancyra, declaring that the Son was of like substance with the Father, homoiousion, was officially imposed.10

The opposition to the anti-pope Felix made it imperative for Constantius to restore Liberius to his see. But it was equally imperative that the Pope should condemn Athanasius. The Emperor used a combination of threats and flattery to attain his objective. Then followed the tragic fall of Liberius. It is described in the sternest of terms in Butler's Lives of the Saints:

About this time Liberius began to sink under the hardships of his exile, and his resolution was shaken by the continual solicitations of Demophilus, the Arian Bishop of Beroea, and of Fortunatian, the temporizing Bishop of Aquileia. He was so far softened, by listening to flatteries and suggestions to which he ought to have stopped his ears with horror, that he yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium, though their heresy was not expressed in it; and he wrote to the Arian bishops of the East that he had received the true Catholic faith which many bishops had approved at Sirmium. The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness, which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself. St. Peter fell by a presumptuous confidence in his own strength and resolution, that we may learn that everyone stands only by humility.11

According to A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1971), "This unjust excommunication [of St. Athanasius] was a moral and not a doctrinal fault."12 Signing one of the "creeds" of Sirmium was far more serious (there is some dispute as to which one Liberius signed, probably the first). The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), describes it as "a document reprehensible from the point of view of the faith."13 Some Catholic apologists have attempted to prove that Liberius neither confirmed the excommunication of Athanasius nor subscribed to one of the formulae of Sirmium. But Cardinal Newman has no doubt that the fall of Liberius is an historical fact.14 This is also the case with the two modern works of reference just cited and the celebrated Catholic Dictionary, edited by Addis and Arnold. The last named points out that there is "a fourfold cord of evidence not easily broken," i. e., the testimonies of St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, Sozomen, and St. Jerome. It also notes that "all the accounts are at once independent of and consistent with each other."15

The New Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that:

Everything points to the fact that he [Liberius] accepted the first formula of Sirmium of 351...it failed gravely in deliberately avoiding the use of the most characteristic expression of the Nicene faith and in particular the homoousion. Thus while it cannot be said that Liberius taught false doctrine, it seems necessary to admit that, through weakness and fear, he did not do justice to the full truth.16

It is quite nonsensical for Protestant polemicists to cite the case of Liberius as an argument against papal infallibility. The excommunication of Athanasius (or of anyone else) is not an act involving infallibility, and the formula he signed contained nothing directly heretical. Nor was it an ex cathedra pronouncement intended to bind the whole Church, and, if it had been, the fact that Liberius acted under duress would have rendered it null and void.

However, despite the pressure to which he was submitted, Liberius' fall reveals a weakness of character when compared with those such as Athanasius, who did remain firm. Cardinal Newman comments:

His fall, which followed, scandalous as it is in itself, may yet be taken to illustrate the silent firmness of those others of his fellow-sufferers, of whom we hear less, because they bore themselves more consistently.17

This is a judgment with which the New Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:

Liberius did not have the strength of character of his predecessor Julius I, or of his successor Damasus I. The troubles that erupted upon the latter's election indicate that the Roman Church had been weakened from within as well as from without during the pontificate of Liberius. His name was not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology.18

So notice two things. First, Athanasius was in the right against even the pope himself. Second, Athanasius gave in to heterodox formulations. He did not teach them infallibly, nor would he have been able to, but he personally ascribed to them.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am just not seeing how your point would play out in practice.  Let's say the pope and cardinals disagree on whether a statement is in conformity with Tradition.  Whose understanding of Tradition would prevail?

The Traditional one, of course. :|

[Eliakim]

If a Pope Said, "the council of Trent taught the transubstantiation but I teach the Eucharist is nothing but a symbol" that is formal and not material heresy. It is possible to know formal from innocent error or material error.

 

Ok, I'll try one last time:

 

It is not ever possible to know if someone is a formal heretic or not.  Just like it is not possible to know if someone is in mortal sin. 

 

One can only know someone holds an opinion that is objectively contradictory to the Church's teachings.  Just like one can only know someone is breaking an objectively grave matter. 

 

Both become formal heretics/mortal sinners only if they do with full knowledge, intent and desire to persist to the end.  But who but God knows the heart? 

 

With these qualifiers it mitigates quite a few scenarios out there. 

 

Now that said...

 

As I said before, a Pope that can be shown to be engaging in teachings objectively contrary to the Church (we can only say with certainty he is a material heretic, and therefore still in the Church) must still be followed because only God knows if he is a formal heretic. 

 

One other consideration is whether or not a pope received a valid and licit election.  I believe it is possible to objectively demonstrate if he did or not, however this may be confusing and is a potential weakness in Catholic ecclesiology, especially when emperors were heavily influencing medieval elections. 

 

All you can do if you believe with good reason and conscience a valid and licitly elected Pope to be a formal heretic is refuse his orders on things outside the realm of faith and morals.  You may also reject non-infallible pronouncements on faith and morals.  But you must obey when he speaks ex-cathedra because the Church believes the Holy Spirit will never allow the Chair to speak heresy, ever.  period. 

 

E

[Perigrina]

Ok, I'll try one last time:

 

It is not ever possible to know if someone is a formal heretic or not.  Just like it is not possible to know if someone is in mortal sin. 

 

One can only know someone holds an opinion that is objectively contradictory to the Church's teachings.  Just like one can only know someone is breaking an objectively grave matter. 

 

Both become formal heretics/mortal sinners only if they do with full knowledge, intent and desire to persist to the end.  But who but God knows the heart? 

I do not see how that can be right.  Canon law describes penalties imposed on those who are guilty of formal heresy.  Why have penalties for something that is never known?  It must be possible for the Church to judge a person to be a formal heretic.

[Eliakim]

I do not see how that can be right.  Canon law describes penalties imposed on those who are guilty of formal heresy.  Why have penalties for something that is never known?  It must be possible for the Church to judge a person to be a formal heretic.

 

I think those penalties are written to be imposed on heresy.  I do not think they specify "material" or "formal". 

 

For example, what happens is the Church moves against a suspected heretic.  The Church cannot know for sure that the person is a "formal" heretic, it can only assume they are and so they impose penalties to stop them from spreading their beliefs. 

 

It is like the Church saying someone is committing a grave act, but it can never say someone is in mortal sin.  It can only suspect it and take measures to stop the act, but only God knows if it is a mortal sin or formal schism/heresy. 

[Seven77]

Bowing towards and kissing objects are signs of reverance in Catholicism and Islam. The Patriarch with the Pope admitted it was not an empty gesture but out of respect for Muslims. So the Pope respected the Quran as those who believe in it. Does that mean we can actively participate in non-Catholic ceremonies? The past teaching was that doing do was forbidden, and any Catholic found doing it was suspect of heresy. The action in itself was scandalous, see 1 Cor 8:9 etc about that. It's simply inexcusable to try to justify this act. I'm not saying the Holy Father was not the Pope, I'm saying he was wrong, and the damage from that and similar actions are still reverberating.


If a Pope Said, "the council of Trent taught the transubstantiation but I teach the Eucharist is nothing but a symbol" that is formal and not material heresy. It is possible to know formal from innocent error or material error.

 

Just curious, what is this alleged damage that is still reverberating and how has it occurred  as a result of the Pope's action? And if he kissed the book out of respect for those who believe in it's contents, how does that legitimize actually participating in non-Catholic ceremonies. I don't think it does.

 

My thoughts about this action: St. John Paul bowed towards the ground and kissed it on several occasions-- was anybody scandalized by these actions? Also, St. Francis of Assisi reverenced pieces of paper with the name of Jesus-- that book in question contains the name of Jesus (I'm pretty sure but I could be wrong somehow)... just saying.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Seven77

[The Bus Station]

[Credo in Deum]

As an aside, the Naksibendi Sufis I associated with... Basically Islamic mysticism... Literally believed JPII was an undercover Muslim! The cited the Quran issue as *one* reason.

 

As an aside, the Imam I associated with literally believed JPII to be one of the worst infidels that ever lived since he kissed their holy book with his swine stained lips.  They took his actions as a grave offence against their faith.   They also said if I encounter mortify ii, to post this to show him how ridiculous these types of statements look since they're unsupported fluff.

 

 

Here have a muffin.   :muffin:

[Credo in Deum]

You win, good sir. 

 

PS, It's so nice, you have to post it twice!