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

[mortify ii]

Mortify 2 believes a future Pope is going to become the false prophet and usher in the antichrist.....So at some point this Pope would have to become antipope......So the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the Church but alot of Catholics who weren't paying attention would be deceived and would be found guilty of not worshiping in truth.....I will also add some respectable protestants think that this is the scenario that is going to play out also......

 

 

 

Dude...

 

Wth are you talkin' about? You need to stop speaking on my behalf, or at least start quoting me instead putting words in my mouth. There is a prophecy in 2 Thessalonians Ch 2 that says the *Antichrist* will set himself up in the temple, some Church fathers interpreted this to mean the Church. Very different from what you thought I said. 

[Socrates]

Say a Pope started teaching something contrary to the Catholic Faith...Does he immediately become an antipope ?

 

A valid Pope can never become an anti-pope.  The Pope remains Pope until death or he resigns.

 

An anti-pope is someone who claims to be Pope while there is a real Pope at the same time.

 

Papal infallibility only applies when the Pope makes a statement in his official office binding on all the faithful on matters of faith and morals.  It does not mean that every time a Pope opens his mouth he is infallible.  (Papal infallibility does not apply to such things as what the pope says in personal conversations and interviews, for instance.)

[mortify ii]

A valid Pope can never become an anti-pope.  The Pope remains Pope until death or he resigns.

 

A Bishop that becomes a manifest *formal* heretic has no jurisdiction over Catholics

[Nihil Obstat]

Michael Davies had something to say on the subject, by the way. It seems to be substantially the same as my initial reaction, but I will reiterate that I have heard other perspectives which are most likely worthy of consideration. By posting this I do not imply anything related to my agreement or disagreement with Mr. Davies or his arguments. I simply think it is valuable for this discussion.

 

Sufficient should now have been written to indicate that the right to resist the Pope has a solid foundation in Catholic theology although the circumstances which could justify such resistance would have to be of the utmost gravity. To repeat a citation by Cardinal Newman: "Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the papal injunction, he is bound to obey it." The object of this appendix is limited to proving that under extraordinary circumstances a Catholic can have not simply the right but the duty to disobey the Pope. A related topic is that of the deposition of a heretical pope. It will be dealt with only briefly here.

Writing in The Tablet in 1965, Abbot (now Bishop) B. C. Butler posed the question as to the source of authority in the Church "if the Pope has disenfranchised himself by public heresy? Where at such a time is hierarchical authority? Where is the authority that can, not indeed depose a pope (no human authority can depose a pope), but declare that the soi-disant pope has lost his powers whether by heresy, schism, or lunacy?"³⁸

It will be noted that Bishop Butler phrased his question carefully. He does not suggest that any authority on earth could either judge or depose the Pope but asks whether there is any authority competent to declare that the Pope has lost his powers. The First Vatican Council taught that: "They err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff."³⁹ Canon Law states clearly:Prima sedes a nomine iudicatur - "The first see can be judged by no one." (Canon 1556) On the other hand Canon 2314 states that: "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a repetition of the warning are to be deposed."

Clearly, if the Pope came into one of these categories he would incur the appropriate penalty - as a cleric he would be deposed but who could depose him as he has no superior? Theologians have answered this question in two ways. One school of thought, represented by St. Robert Bellarmine, taught that a heretical pope would be judged by God and cease per se to be pope: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."⁴⁰ The man the Church would be judging and punishing would not be the Pope, he would not even be a Catholic.

This is also the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by F. X. Wernz, rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. His work was revised by P. Vidal and last republished in 1952.⁴¹

The fact that the Pope had been deposed by God for heresy would need to be made known to the Church. This could be done by the declaration of a General Council. Cardinal Torquemada makes it clear that the Pope would not actually be judged by the Council - a Council cannot judge a pope nor is there any appeal from a pope to a Council. It would be a "declaratory sentence," a declaration that the Pope has lost his office through heresy or schism. "Properly speaking, the Pope is not deposed by the Council because of heresy but rather he is declared not to be pope since he fell openly into heresy and remains obstinate and hardened in heresy."⁴²

Wernz-Vidal explain the position in very similar terms, i. e. the Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."⁴³

In other words, the sentence merely declares publicly that the Pope has already been deposed: it is not the sentence which deposes him.

An important group of theologians including Cajetan, Suarez, and two Spanish Dominicans who were prominent in the debates at the Council of Trent - Melchior Cano and Dominic Soto, held a contrary view which was that it was the sentence of the Council which deprived the Pope of his office. This view does not appear tenable subsequent to the teaching of Vatican I  which has already been cited, i. e. that there is no appeal from the judgment of a pope to a General Council. However, even the view that the General Council does not depose the Pope, but merely declares him to be deposed, raises extremely difficult problems. Who would summon a General Council since this is the prerogative of the Pope? What if the Pope could be persuaded to summon it but then refused to accept its decision? Fortunately, Pope John XXII submitted to the commission of theologians which declared his views on the Judgment to be heretical. Sixtus V died before his erroneous version of the Vulgate could be promulgated. The hypothesis of a heretical pope who either refused to summon a Council or or refused to submit to its judgment, and did not die in the opportune manner of Pope Sixtus V, is one which would give even the very best theologians a great deal of food for thought. No attempt will be made to solve it here as it is only a hypothesis. The purpose of raising the matter of a papal deposition is to demonstrate that not only is it quite legitimate to resist the Pope if he is using his power to destroy the Church but that the far more serious step of actually deposing the Pope has been a matter for free debate among theologians.

 

[arfink]

While the discussion here is interesting I frankly find it a little bit worrisome that so many people are concerned over this. I find it difficult to relate to people who are actually concerned that a pope would openly teach heresy. It's so far outside the realm of imagination that it'd be like having a serious conversation about whether the moon landings are fake or whether we are living inside of the Matrix.

[Nihil Obstat]

While the discussion here is interesting I frankly find it a little bit worrisome that so many people are concerned over this. I find it difficult to relate to people who are actually concerned that a pope would openly teach heresy. It's so far outside the realm of imagination that it'd be like having a serious conversation about whether the moon landings are fake or whether we are living inside of the Matrix.

But it actually has happened in the history of the Church. Several times. Each with unique circumstances, and none posing problems to papal infallibility, but that it has happened is undeniable. That it could happen again in any modern age simply stands to reason.

[mortify ii]

While the discussion here is interesting I frankly find it a little bit worrisome that so many people are concerned over this. I find it difficult to relate to people who are actually concerned that a pope would openly teach heresy. It's so far outside the realm of imagination that it'd be like having a serious conversation about whether the moon landings are fake or whether we are living inside of the Matrix.

 

In my personal opinion, and I say this as a simple Catholic, the issue here is not something abstract at all. We need not consider some hypothetical future event, for many educated theologians and canon lawyers have raised this red flag in our own time. It is deeply disturbing to me that what has been hypothesized in the past may apply to our time, and it leaves my soul in agitation for days at times. I pray to God to keep me strong and on the right path, any charge against a Pope or council is always serious, and so we must keep in mind a distinction between material error and formal error. That material error has been promulgated, I sadly feel is becoming beyond dispute in my simple mind and conscience, but the issue of formal error, and this is what makes a person lose ecclesiastical office de facto, is something far off and I don't believe has been proven, and hence can not commit to sedevacantism. 

[Guest]

But it actually has happened in the history of the Church. Several times. Each with unique circumstances, and none posing problems to papal infallibility, but that it has happened is undeniable. That it could happen again in any modern age simply stands to reason.

It has happened before ? A legit elected pope became an antipope? Also thanks for the previous post. It was a good read. Edited May 8, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

but the issue of formal error, and this is what makes a person lose ecclesiastical office de facto, is something far off and I don't believe has been proven, and hence can not commit to sedevacantism.

I think we can say with 100 % confidence it hasn't been proven...

[Nihil Obstat]

It has happened before ? A legit elected pope became an antipope? Also thanks for the previous post. It was a good read.

No no, that a valid pope has taught heresy.

[Guest]

No no, that a valid pope has taught heresy.

So what happened when the pope taught heresy ?

[mortify ii]

So what happened when the pope taught heresy ?

 

As the quote Nihil posted said, they either accepted the correction of learned theologians or by the grace of God were taken to heaven before they could make a formal act of heresy. 

[Guest]

Gotcha...

[Nihil Obstat]

So it is not a settled question as to what would happen if a pope were to attempt to formally teach heresy, and did not somehow relent. As the passage I quoted alluded to. But like I suspected, one possible solution is that somehow a general council would recognize the pope's heresy and declare him to have lost his office - to be carefully distinguished from the council actually depriving him of his office by its own authority. It does not seem that a council possesses that authority.

[Guest]

The Apocalypse begins and Justin Bieber is declared greatest musician of all time.

Songs like this help his case https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SOI4OF7iIr4