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

[Guest]

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.

Should there be something in place to deal with this if it were to happen ? An "official" teaching ? What are your thoughts?

[Nihil Obstat]

Should there be something in place to deal with this if it were to happen ? An "official" teaching ? What are your thoughts?

I do not know. I pray we never have to find out.

[Guest]

Yea agreed.......It would be interesting if that's the way it ends up playing out when the antichrist comes.....That a Pope becomes an antipope then becomes the false prophet that tells the world to worship the antichrist......Protestants would of sorta (big emphasis on sorta) been right all along about Revelations except that by the Pope becoming an antipope first before becoming the false prophet the gates of hell would not prevail against the Catholic Church......

Edited May 8, 2014 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

Yea agreed.......It would be interesting if that's the way it ends up playing out when the antichrist comes.....That a Pope becomes an antipope then becomes the false prophet that tells the world to worship the antichrist......Protestants would of sorta (big emphasis on sorta) been right all along about Revelations except that by the Pope becoming an antipope first before becoming the false prophet the gates of hell would not prevail against the Catholic Church......

There is a very extensive body of approved Catholic prophecy which all tend to agree on certain main points. I wrote a lengthy post a while back on this topic, so I will try to track it down later.

[mortify ii]

There is a very extensive body of approved Catholic prophecy which all tend to agree on certain main points. I wrote a lengthy post a while back on this topic, so I will try to track it down later.

 

Nihil, which book do you recommend on Catholic prophecy?

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil, which book do you recommend on Catholic prophecy?

Trial Tribulation and Triumph: Before During and After Antichrist. Desmond Birch. Hands down the best.

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly, this exact topic came up today while we were all out eating pizza with our priests. He also agreed with the piece I quoted above, with the same looming question of how a general council could possibly be called in order to declare a wayward pope deposed.

[Nihil Obstat]

There is a very extensive body of approved Catholic prophecy which all tend to agree on certain main points. I wrote a lengthy post a while back on this topic, so I will try to track it down later.

This time I remembered to deliver on my promise.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132365-ok-to-believe-vatican-may-1-day-become-whore-of-babylon/

 

I said the following:

 

Very briefly, from a very short skim I just did [of a timeline appendix included in Dr. Birch's book], I can say this in a very disorganized fashion:

 

It is well established within the realm of Church-approved private prophecy that there will be a Minor Chastisement that may, under some conditions, lead to a major schism within the Catholic Church. Could be an antipope involved. Hard to say, but there are many approved prophecies which offer possible details.

The minor chastisement is said to end with a sort of major victory for the Church, led by a very holy secular leader, some kind of 'Great King' bringing in an age of peace. A sort of new renaissance of Catholicism. A saintly pope is also elected around this time. The final event of the minor chastisement is typically described as three days of darkness, and we are well within the scope of Church-approved prophesies to believe that this is a real event.

There are well-established alternative possibilities that allow for the minor chastisement to be largely averted through the prayers and penance of the Church.

The age of peace is very conditional, but it ends as the prosperity causes people to become lax in the faith.This Catholic renaissance ends as a false prophet, as a mocking type of St. John the Baptist, 'prepares' the world for the literal Antichrist. The Catholic influence over the world crumbles at this point. 

Antichrist then gains great power and uses it to persecute the Church. Enoch and Elias return to preach to the gentiles and Jews, and are murdered by Antichrist, then commanded by God to rise up again. They do so, scoring a victory against Antichrist who is then defeated by St. Michael as Antichrist attempts to replicate Christ's ascension from Mt. Olivet.

After the death of Antichrist there is some amount of time during which things return to normal, preparing the world for Christ's return, of which of course we do not know the day or the hour.

 

So, a couple important notes. No Catholic is compelled to believe in private prophecy. If this does not help your faith, then pay no attention. But these things come from a comprehensive study of those private prophecies which have received official approval, so it is also permitted for a Catholic to believe these things.

With regards to your original question, during that possible schism during the minor chastisement, certainly many will be led astray, and perhaps there will be an antipope. Some have also speculated that the false prophet of the Antichrist sets himself up as an antipope.

During the minor chastisement, there is a period of war on a worldwide scale during which it is usually believed that the pope is forced to flee Rome. It is possible that an antipope sets himself up in St. Peter's during this time.

 

So once again, nobody is required to believe any of this, but it is entirely permitted to believe these things as well, because over many centuries and across many geographical locations there has been remarkable agreement among approved private prophets about many of these events. A serious, faithful study of these things is certainly something to be respected, as long as it remains faithful to the Church. Which I am assured Dr. Birch certainly does.

 

Also, many of these things could certainly be interpreted in a symbolic way. Enoch and Elias, for instance. The three days of darkness. The exact nature of the wars during the minor chastisement. We do not know how it will play out - we are simply left with a very broad set of approved prophecies which agree on a set of points, about which we cannot understand the exact nature without experiencing.

 

Lastly, while I did not get into this in the interest of time, Dr. Birch is very clear that there is not sufficient reason to expect the minor chastisement to be at hand. There are quite a few conditions which will be present, according to our prophecies, when this happens, and we are not seeing those things right now. He is not one of the "the end is near" types. He is very well respected for his work. Interesting sidenote, there was a member here in the past who did believe that the chastisement was at hand in a matter of years. Dr. Birch was posting here temporarily and attempted to show how this was not a feasible interpretation of the body of approved prophecy that we have.

[Credo in Deum]

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.

 

The pope holds the highest authority in the Church and cannot be deposed validly by anyone in the Church.  Canon law allows the pope to choose to leave, but if he doesn't then that is that.  He will continue to remain the valid pope until death, even if he teaches heresy.  If a council deposed such a pope and elected a "new pope", this "new pope" would be an anti-pope. 

[Nihil Obstat]

The pope holds the highest authority in the Church and cannot be deposed validly by anyone in the Church.  Canon law allows the pope to choose to leave, but if he doesn't then that is that.  He will continue to remain the valid pope until death, even if he teaches heresy.  If a council deposed such a pope and elected a "new pope", this "new pope" would be an anti-pope. 

You did not read the thing I posted earlier? Sadz. Anyway, the reasoning along that line is that if the pope were to lose the papacy in such a way, a council might declare him deposed, i.e. recognize that he has lost the See through his own actions. Not of a council's own authority. The main variable is how such a council comes to assemble in a valid manner.

Think of it as analogous to a declaration of nullity.

[Credo in Deum]

You did not read the thing I posted earlier? Sadz. Anyway, the reasoning along that line is that if the pope were to lose the papacy in such a way, a council might declare him deposed, i.e. recognize that he has lost the See through his own actions. Not of a council's own authority. The main variable is how such a council comes to assemble in a valid manner.

Think of it as analogous to a declaration of nullity.

 

I missed that post, but I have since read it.  The crux of the matter is how do you assemble without the pope?  Furthermore even if the heretical pope agrees to assemble such a council, how would you get the heretical pope to agree with said councils judgment? We should also keep in mind that what St. Robert Bellarmine stated was his own personal opinion.  As for the excommunication of the pope, who has the authority to do this?  No one.  

 

Looks like the only way you can depose a pope would be to prove that he was not validly elected. For a validly elected pope, however, my post would still be the correct answer to the question thus far.  It all boils down to authority.  The pope holds the highest authority and therefore cannot be excommunicated or removed by any member of the Church, unless he chooses to do so himself.  

[Credo in Deum]

Continued....

 

Yes, of course God can depose a pope, but how do you 1) excommunicate him under canon law (remember he has to be reproached by someone with authority to do so), and  2.) assemble a valid council without him, to declare that he has been deposed by God?  

 

Edited May 9, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[mortify ii]

I missed that post, but I have since read it.  The crux of the matter is how do you assemble without the pope?  Furthermore even if the heretical pope agrees to assemble such a council, how would you get the heretical pope to agree with said councils judgment? We should also keep in mind that what St. Robert Bellarmine stated was his own personal opinion.  As for the excommunication of the pope, who has the authority to do this?  No one.  

 

Looks like the only way you can depose a pope would be to prove that he was not validly elected. For a validly elected pope, however, my post would still be the correct answer to the question thus far.  It all boils down to authority.  The pope holds the highest authority and therefore cannot be excommunicated or removed by any member of the Church, unless he chooses to do so himself.  

 

Just to sort of piggy-back on what Nihil was saying, it's important to understand that the Council does not have the authority to depose a Pope, rather the Pope would depose himself by his formal heresy. Since a formal heretic is not Catholic, and a non-Catholic can't have authority over Catholics, any Bishop (even the Pope) would ipso facto lose their ecclesiastical office once they committed formal heresy. What a general council would be doing is recognizing that this has occurred. Now if the Pope recants his error and returns to the fold then all is well, but if not, or if the corruption is so wide spread that the majority if Bishops also believe in the error, then we are in a precarious situation. Perhaps then the order falls on the next level of believers? 

[Nihil Obstat]

I missed that post, but I have since read it.  The crux of the matter is how do you assemble without the pope?  Furthermore even if the heretical pope agrees to assemble such a council, how would you get the heretical pope to agree with said councils judgment? We should also keep in mind that what St. Robert Bellarmine stated was his own personal opinion.  As for the excommunication of the pope, who has the authority to do this?  No one.  

 

Looks like the only way you can depose a pope would be to prove that he was not validly elected. For a validly elected pope, however, my post would still be the correct answer to the question thus far.  It all boils down to authority.  The pope holds the highest authority and therefore cannot be excommunicated or removed by any member of the Church, unless he chooses to do so himself.  

Just speculation, but if an heretical pope could be prevailed upon to assemble a general council, and such a council unequivocally found that pope to have lost the papacy, then the logical next step would be to hold a conclave, with or without the heretical pope's approval. One could hope the heretic would at that point either repent or at least step aside, but the logical conclusions as it occurs to me is that a conclave could then validly choose a new pope, leaving the heretical claimant now as an antipope.

I do not think there is historical precedent on either side, so speculation is all we have to go on.

 

There was a pope in the middle ages (whose name and circumstances I cannot recall, but will track down if you feel it necessary) who had planned on teaching something which constituted formal heresy. His cardinals convinced him to call a council which examined his proposed teachings, finding them heretical. In deference to their findings, that pope repented of his errors.

 

If a valid pope were to lose the See of Rome through heresy, then it does not strictly speaking make sense to say that he could not be excommunicated or removed involuntarily. The nature of our hypothetical, the actual manifest formal heresy, means that such a pope already is excommunicated, and in the opinion of many theologians and canon lawyers, already deposed. It just happens. That part is not within our control.

The question then becomes a matter of procedure. How do we get a new pope? That is trickier. But the fact that it is a tricky question does not imply, in my opinion, that the losing of the papal office is itself necessarily impossible.

[Credo in Deum]

Just to sort of piggy-back on what Nihil was saying, it's important to understand that the Council does not have the authority to depose a Pope, rather the Pope would depose himself by his formal heresy. Since a formal heretic is not Catholic, and a non-Catholic can't have authority over Catholics, any Bishop (even the Pope) would ipso facto lose their ecclesiastical office once they committed formal heresy. What a general council would be doing is recognizing that this has occurred. Now if the Pope recants his error and returns to the fold then all is well, but if not, or if the corruption is so wide spread that the majority if Bishops also believe in the error, then we are in a precarious situation. Perhaps then the order falls on the next level of believers? 

 

"The fact that the Pope had been deposed by God for heresy would need to be made known to the Church"

 

 

Like Nihil's post said it is not a settled question.  I personally do not see any way a heretical pope could lose his office   If the council cannot assemble to declare that he has been deposed by God, then there is no way we could have a new pope elected without the person becoming an anti-pope.