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

[mortify ii]

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.  

 

I don't think the issue is so much whether a Pope would remove himself from office by formal heresy as to what will be done afterwards. Again, it's not a settled issue because we have no historical precedent. 

[Credo in Deum]

Again, it's not a settled issue because we have no historical precedent. 

 

IMHO, this is because God protects the office and either gives the pope time to repent and be corrected, or He dispatches them (hopefully they have repented). 

[mortify ii]

IMHO, this is because God protects the office and either gives the pope time to repent and be corrected, or He dispatches them (hopefully they have repented). 

 

This is true and historically the few heretical Popes we had either recanted or died before they could do any damage, and these are of course miracles from God but we also have to acquaint ourselves with an uncomfortable reality. God can punish us by withdrawing such a protection, and in essence give us the leaders we deserve. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Look at the alternative, Credo. An invalid papal pretender in office for a decade? Or for God knows how long. A possibility I guess, but not a clearly preferable one.

[Credo in Deum]

Look at the alternative, Credo. An invalid papal pretender in office for a decade? Or for God knows how long. A possibility I guess, but not a clearly preferable one.

 

Yes a possibility, but are you suggesting we do something that is not valid to remove a valid pope that has fallen into heresy?

[mortify ii]

Yes a possibility, but are you suggesting we do something that is not valid to remove a valid pope that has fallen into heresy?

 

A formal heretic removes them-self from the Church and and therefore from any office. It would not be the Church removing them. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes a possibility, but are you suggesting we do something that is not valid to remove a valid pope that has fallen into heresy?

The invalid part being a council calling itself? I never really suggested that it is the only way. At that point we are essentially into free speculation. I have nothing to say one way or another.

I mean, ideally the heretical pope himself would call a council, and either recant or resign. Perhaps an heretical pope calls a council intending to impose his will on it, and the council instead stands up for Church teaching and declares him as having been deposed by God. Who knows. Too many variables. Lots of bad outcomes.

But the worst outcome of all would be for a pope to attempt to promulgate heresy, and to be unopposed by the hierarchy. That is the outcome that must be avoided above all others, should such a situation ever present itself.

[LouisvilleFan]

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

 

The Catechism clearly states this is an impossible scenario. See paragraphs 890-892.

 

The questions with anti-popes have surrounded the validity of their elections, so it was a matter of deciding if the alleged pope was ever pope at all. It's similar to how tribunals decide whether a marriage was valid or not. To put a spin on the Calvinist phrase, Catholics believe in Once Valid, Always Valid.

 

The bottom line is we trust God's providence. He gave us the Church and sacraments so that we can rest upon them. If it's possible for popes to teach heresy "from the chair of Peter," then there's no reason to have a Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

The Catechism clearly states this is an impossible scenario. See paragraphs 890-892.

The questions with anti-popes have surrounded the validity of their elections, so it was a matter of deciding if the alleged pope was ever pope at all. It's similar to how tribunals decide whether a marriage was valid or not. To put a spin on the Calvinist phrase, Catholics believe in Once Valid, Always Valid.

The bottom line is we trust God's providence. He gave us the Church and sacraments so that we can rest upon them. If it's possible for popes to teach heresy "from the chair of Peter," then there's no reason to have a Church.

So you are saying simply that a pope would die or recant before being permitted to attempt to teach heresy? Basically, God must intervene in an extraordinary manner?

[LouisvilleFan]

So you are saying simply that a pope would die or recant before being permitted to attempt to teach heresy? Basically, God must intervene in an extraordinary manner?

 

It wouldn't have to be extraordinary. We have examples in history where popes have abused their power (both temporal and spiritual) yet the Holy Spirit kept the gates of Hell at bay.

For one, circumstances can prevent any teaching from being made ex cathedra (the Borgia's seem to be a good example of this). Or in another case, the ex cathedra statement which they thought closed the door to any interpretation is found generations later to be a wide open window (proclaim "no salvation outside the Church" to keep France and the Protestants in line... hundreds of years later, we understand there are some degrees why people are joined to Her imperfectly through Baptism, profession of faith, etc.).

[mortify ii]

It wouldn't have to be extraordinary. We have examples in history where popes have abused their power (both temporal and spiritual) yet the Holy Spirit kept the gates of Hell at bay.

For one, circumstances can prevent any teaching from being made ex cathedra (the Borgia's seem to be a good example of this). Or in another case, the ex cathedra statement which they thought closed the door to any interpretation is found generations later to be a wide open window (proclaim "no salvation outside the Church" to keep France and the Protestants in line... hundreds of years later, we understand there are some degrees why people are joined to Her imperfectly through Baptism, profession of faith, etc.).

 

The Catechism citations you quoted in no way indicate it is impossible for a Pontiff to become a formal heretic. In fact there a plethora of holy doctors, theologians, saints, and even Popes who speculated on this very real possibility (Cajetan, Suarez, St Thomas, St Belleramaine, Pope Innocent III, Paul IV, St Alphonsus). We know from history that we did in fact have formal heretics as Popes, but they either recanted or died before they could act out on their heresy, but we may consider the possibility of one such person not dying.

 

Regarding the dogma of no salvation outside of the Church, what is your basis for saying the "window is wide open"? The dogma is ancient and consistently taught for two millenia, there is no objective way for a non-Catholic to be saved other than through Jesus and his Church. But the Church always understood that God can act outside of the sacraments and so saying there is no objective salvation outside of the Church does not mean every single non-Catholic is in hell. The real answer is *we don't know*, we don't know what happens with souls that die outside of the Church and at best commend them to the mercy of God. It is beyond the Magisterium's authority to judge on internal matters (De internis Ecclesia non judica), she simply can not speak on subjective things. That a non-Catholic who is outside of the Church through no fault of their own, and follows the natural law and is responsive to actual graces given to them *can* go to heaven if God bestows the grace of baptism on them is speculation. Again, we simply don't know what will happen, but we will find out on the day of judgement.

 

The danger here is that when we engage in such speculation we very easily enter into errors such as indifferentism and false ecumenism. You yourself have suggested that the "window is wide open" which is absolutely wrong. Objectively speaking, the window is closed. Protestants NEED to become Catholic, Jews NEED to become Catholic, Pagans NEED to become Catholic. This is a very real need, Catholicism is not akin to the best route to get to one's destination, it is the *only* route.

[Nihil Obstat]

It wouldn't have to be extraordinary. We have examples in history where popes have abused their power (both temporal and spiritual) yet the Holy Spirit kept the gates of Hell at bay.

For one, circumstances can prevent any teaching from being made ex cathedra (the Borgia's seem to be a good example of this). Or in another case, the ex cathedra statement which they thought closed the door to any interpretation is found generations later to be a wide open window (proclaim "no salvation outside the Church" to keep France and the Protestants in line... hundreds of years later, we understand there are some degrees why people are joined to Her imperfectly through Baptism, profession of faith, etc.).

It would perhaps not appear extraordinary from our perspective, but over time, from the perspective of heaven, I think that clearly qualifies. In a similar vein as stories of scapulars somehow being removed from those who are unworthy or unfaithful, or the intervention of the Holy Ghost to allow for papal infallibility, if all popes throughout all of history were killed or recanted before teaching error, I think that would indicate direct intervention on the part of God.

[LouisvilleFan]

The Catechism citations you quoted in no way indicate it is impossible for a Pontiff to become a formal heretic.

 

I didn't make that claim. Only that the Catechism clearly states a Pope will never teach heresy when "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." It wouldn't necessarily have to be an untimely death or abdication of office... it could will be a very boring intervention, like removing any desire by a heretical pope to make a teaching "ex cathera" while he serves for many years. It's rather fascinating how the Spirit can work, I think.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the dogma of no salvation outside of the Church, what is your basis for saying the "window is wide open"?

Just a bit of jest at the thinking that Vatican II has watered down Catholicism into some pantheistic religion. They like to quote the more dogmatic citations of earlier centuries to draw out the contrast in language, without recognizing the context of each (along with the clearly selfish intentions of those who established such dogmatic teaching). The beauty of it being that infallibility isn't entrusted only to the holy popes. It's entrusted only to the Spirit, and no pope (good, bad, or indifferent) can do anything about that even when they try.

[Perigrina]

The Catechism citations you quoted in no way indicate it is impossible for a Pontiff to become a formal heretic. In fact there a plethora of holy doctors, theologians, saints, and even Popes who speculated on this very real possibility (Cajetan, Suarez, St Thomas, St Belleramaine, Pope Innocent III, Paul IV, St Alphonsus). We know from history that we did in fact have formal heretics as Popes, but they either recanted or died before they could act out on their heresy, but we may consider the possibility of one such person not dying.

 

I do not understand how a pope could be a formal heretic.  What makes a heresy formal, as opposed to material, is the obstinate refusal to accept correction from one who has the authority to correct.  Who would have the authority to correct a pope?

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not understand how a pope could be a formal heretic.  What makes a heresy formal, as opposed to material, is the obstinate refusal to accept correction from one who has the authority to correct.  Who would have the authority to correct a pope?

Oh. I cannot agree with this at all. It is not true that nobody has the authority to correct the pope, if the pope is in error. Certainly such cases may be rare, and the pope is due particular deference, but there are several useful historical examples where the pope was in error and corrected. Starting with St. Peter.