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

[Perigrina]

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.

 

The "go to" examples of people corrrecting a pope are St. Paul and St. Catherine of Sienna.  These were both cases of correcting a pope's behaviour.  I cannot think of any examples of a pope teaching error and anyone being recognized as having authority to tell him it was error.  The pope is the supreme teacher of the Church.  Who has the authority to teach the highest teacher?

[mortify ii]

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.


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.

You did suggest it was impossible for the Pope to teach error based on your response to Josh's quesrion.

Regarding infallibility it's extremely narrow. A pope can't issue new doctrine, so even if he were to say, "I solemnly declare and define and require all to believe God is really four persons" that would not be an act of infallibility despite the terminology present. It would rather be an act of heresy and the Pope would depose himself by it.

Regarding dogma, they are essentially inspired even if some men may have had selfish interests. Don't go modernist on is Louisville! Edited May 13, 2014 by mortify ii

[Nihil Obstat]

The "go to" examples of people corrrecting a pope are St. Paul and St. Catherine of Sienna.  These were both cases of correcting a pope's behaviour.  I cannot think of any examples of a pope teaching error and anyone being recognized as having authority to tell him it was error.  The pope is the supreme teacher of the Church.  Who has the authority to teach the highest teacher?

Pope John XXII submitted himself to the recognition of his cardinals that he believed heresy.

 

The pope is not higher than tradition. He acts in service to tradition. Saying that nobody has the authority to correct the pope is tantamount to saying that the pope is inerrant. We have the ability to measure the teachings of any particular pope against the clear teachings of Tradition. If there is some apparent lack of agreement, we must dig deeper. Sometimes the difficulty will be resolved, sometimes the pope will be therefore compelled to accept correction. It is not we who correct the pope, but the Church.

[mortify ii]

Pope John XXII submitted himself to the recognition of his cardinals that he believed heresy.

The pope is not higher than tradition. He acts in service to tradition. Saying that nobody has the authority to correct the pope is tantamount to saying that the pope is inerrant. We have the ability to measure the teachings of any particular pope against the clear teachings of Tradition. If there is some apparent lack of agreement, we must dig deeper. Sometimes the difficulty will be resolved, sometimes the pope will be therefore compelled to accept correction. It is not we who correct the pope, but the Church.

Yes, exactly! Most mistaken notion in our time is the idea the Pope can do anything and our response is to blindly obey. Nothing more is further from the truth.

[Perigrina]

Pope John XXII submitted himself to the recognition of his cardinals that he believed heresy.

 

The pope is not higher than tradition. He acts in service to tradition. Saying that nobody has the authority to correct the pope is tantamount to saying that the pope is inerrant. We have the ability to measure the teachings of any particular pope against the clear teachings of Tradition. If there is some apparent lack of agreement, we must dig deeper. Sometimes the difficulty will be resolved, sometimes the pope will be therefore compelled to accept correction. It is not we who correct the pope, but the Church.

 

 

Saying that nobody has authority to correct a pope is quite different from saying that he is inerrant.  We know that popes can err when not teaching under the circumstances which establish infallibility.  But, while this is true in theory, I do not see how, in practice, the existence of the error could be proven.  At least, not during that pope's reign.

 

Here is a quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm ) which shows a traditional understanding of the pope's role as supreme teacher:

 

 

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

• it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
• it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
• The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university;
• to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
• It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
• his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly
• he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

 

Note that one of the points is "his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure".  The pope, as the supreme teacher of the Church, is the person who decides whether or not a proposition is heretical.  So, how could anyone else have the authority to proclaim that something the pope said was heretical?  People could tell the pope he was making a heretical statement (like the cardinals of John XXII) but he would not be obliged to accept their judgment.  Contrast this with anyone else.  If I, for example, were told by the pope or his delegate that I was making a heretical statement, I would be obliged to recant.  If I did not, I would be a formal heretic.  But a pope is not under such an obligation to anyone.

 

I also question your statement: "We have the ability to measure the teachings of any particular pope against the clear teachings of Tradition."  I have seen many, many claims on the Internet and elsewhere which posited that a pope was teaching against clear teachings of Tradition and yet these claims were inevitably challenged.  How clear can these issues be if there is so much disagreement?  And it is precisely because such disagreement is possible that Christ established the Church with a supreme teacher with the authority to settle disputes.

 

While it is true enough that a pope is not higher than Tradition, he is the final interpreter of Tradition.  If he were to teach in error, only a subsequent pope would have the authority to say so.

[Perigrina]

Yes, exactly! Most mistaken notion in our time is the idea the Pope can do anything and our response is to blindly obey. Nothing more is further from the truth.

 

In my experience, the opposite error is just as prevalent.  Many people do not understand what is owed to the pope.  Some would give more than they ought and others would give less.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Saying that nobody has authority to correct a pope is quite different from saying that he is inerrant.  We know that popes can err when not teaching under the circumstances which establish infallibility.  But, while this is true in theory, I do not see how, in practice, the existence of the error could be proven.  At least, not during that pope's reign.

 

Here is a quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm ) which shows a traditional understanding of the pope's role as supreme teacher:

 

 

Note that one of the points is "his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure".  The pope, as the supreme teacher of the Church, is the person who decides whether or not a proposition is heretical.  So, how could anyone else have the authority to proclaim that something the pope said was heretical?  People could tell the pope he was making a heretical statement (like the cardinals of John XXII) but he would not be obliged to accept their judgment.  Contrast this with anyone else.  If I, for example, were told by the pope or his delegate that I was making a heretical statement, I would be obliged to recant.  If I did not, I would be a formal heretic.  But a pope is not under such an obligation to anyone.

 

I also question your statement: "We have the ability to measure the teachings of any particular pope against the clear teachings of Tradition."  I have seen many, many claims on the Internet and elsewhere which posited that a pope was teaching against clear teachings of Tradition and yet these claims were inevitably challenged.  How clear can these issues be if there is so much disagreement?  And it is precisely because such disagreement is possible that Christ established the Church with a supreme teacher with the authority to settle disputes.

 

While it is true enough that a pope is not higher than Tradition, he is the final interpreter of Tradition.  If he were to teach in error, only a subsequent pope would have the authority to say so.

Again I will refer to John XXII. He held objectively heretical views about the beatific vision. He taught this heretical teaching, though he did not attempt to define it under infallibility. Eventually, before his death, he accepted the negative judgement of his cardinals and recanted his heretical beliefs.

When a pope attempts to teach doctrines which are against the faith, against tradition, it is both the right and duty of faithful Catholics to oppose his errors. In doubtful matters we allow liberty of course, and the teaching authority of the Church will clarify in good time.

HYPOTHETICAL:

But think, for instance, if a pope denied the Immaculate Conception. You do not need to be a pope to see that this is scandalous and heretical. You do not need to be a pope to oppose that heresy.

Such a heresy, of course, could never be taught infallibly (and our discussion on this thread centers around what might happen if such an attempt was made), but the point is that if a pope were to teach that, even without attempting to invoke infallibility, it would be our duty as Catholics to oppose his errors, pope or not.

[Perigrina]

Again I will refer to John XXII. He held objectively heretical views about the beatific vision. He taught this heretical teaching, though he did not attempt to define it under infallibility. Eventually, before his death, he accepted the negative judgement of his cardinals and recanted his heretical beliefs.

When a pope attempts to teach doctrines which are against the faith, against tradition, it is both the right and duty of faithful Catholics to oppose his errors. In doubtful matters we allow liberty of course, and the teaching authority of the Church will clarify in good time.

HYPOTHETICAL:

But think, for instance, if a pope denied the Immaculate Conception. You do not need to be a pope to see that this is scandalous and heretical. You do not need to be a pope to oppose that heresy.

Such a heresy, of course, could never be taught infallibly (and our discussion on this thread centers around what might happen if such an attempt was made), but the point is that if a pope were to teach that, even without attempting to invoke infallibility, it would be our duty as Catholics to oppose his errors, pope or not.

 

I am not saying that Catholics should not oppose errors taught by a pope.  I'm saying that a pope in such a situation could not be considered a formal heretic, only a material heretic.  In order to be a formal heretic one requires pertinacity in error which usually involves rejecting a correction which one is obliged to accept due to the authority of the correcter.

 

A far more likely scenario than the hypothetical situation you propose is that a pope would make a statement which some people understood as a denial of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception while the pope himself claimed his statement was compatible with it.  Our duty as Catholics is much less clear in such a situation. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Every Catholic has the duty to oppose errors, even if the pope is the one who holds them. It follows that the pope is then obliged to accept such corrections, if they are in conformity with Tradition.

[Perigrina]

Every Catholic has the duty to oppose errors, even if the pope is the one who holds them. It follows that the pope is then obliged to accept such corrections, if they are in conformity with Tradition.

 

What if the pope thinks his statement is in conformity with Tradition and some other people do not think so?  Who decides what is in conformity with Tradition?

 

A situation in which a pope knowingly and deliberately teaches error is extremely unlikely to occur.  Most people who teach error do so because they think they are right. 

[Nihil Obstat]

What if the pope thinks his statement is in conformity with Tradition and some other people do not think so? Who decides what is in conformity with Tradition?

A situation in which a pope knowingly and deliberately teaches error is extremely unlikely to occur. Most people who teach error do so because they think they are right.

Then the matter in question should be put to study, or if serious enough a council can be called. Then it can be determined whether or not the pope is teaching in conformity with tradition. Refer to the Arian crisis. There were popes who adhered to semi Arian formulations, and were opposed by St. Athanasius. Did he sin by demanding strong, orthodox presentations of doctrine of the pope, as required by his office?

[Perigrina]

Then the matter in question should be put to study, or if serious enough a council can be called. Then it can be determined whether or not the pope is teaching in conformity with tradition. Refer to the Arian crisis. There were popes who adhered to semi Arian formulations, and were opposed by St. Athanasius. Did he sin by demanding strong, orthodox presentations of doctrine of the pope, as required by his office?

 

I just recently came across a talk by Fr. Nicholson on the topic of St. Athanasius:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6gI3GWmII
 

In summary, the life of St. Athanasius is used to excuse many things that should not be excused. 

 

Anyhow, I am not aware of a Church teaching which says that a Council has the authority to tell a pope that his teaching is not in conformity with Tradition and demand that he change it.  Do you have references for this?  While anyone can present concerns about a pope's teaching to him, I do not think that we should be demanding that he agree with us.  Nor am I convinced that this is what St. Athanasius did.

[Nihil Obstat]

I just recently came across a talk by Fr. Nicholson on the topic of St. Athanasius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6gI3GWmII

In summary, the life of St. Athanasius is used to excuse many things that should not be excused.

Anyhow, I am not aware of a Church teaching which says that a Council has the authority to tell a pope that his teaching is not in conformity with Tradition and demand that he change it. Do you have references for this? While anyone can present concerns about a pope's teaching to him, I do not think that we should be demanding that he agree with us. Nor am I convinced that this is what St. Athanasius did.

You are getting it backwards. A council does not condemn a pope, but rather recognizes the legitimate and unchanging Traditions of the Church. As they always do. Tradition exists independently of those who are bound in faith to teach it. If a pope finds himself on the wrong side of that Tradition, then he is thereby obligated to correct the deficiency. The Pope serves Tradition, not the other way around.

When I have a few moments I will post Michael Davies explanations on this subject. Are you familiar with him? Edited May 14, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Perigrina]

You are getting it backwards. A council does not condemn a pope, but rather recognizes the legitimate and unchanging Traditions of the Church. As they always do. Tradition exists independently of those who are bound in faith to teach it. If a pope finds himself on the wrong side of that Tradition, then he is thereby obligated to correct the deficiency. The Pope serves Tradition, not the other way around.

When I have a few moments I will post Michael Davies explanations on this subject. Are you familiar with him?

 

There is relatively little difficulty in recognizing the legitimate and unchanging Tradition of the Church, as already defined.  Recognizing whether new formulations are in conformity with Tradition is far more difficult.  Knowledgeable, good-willed people may very well disagree on such questions.  It is not a simple matter of serving Tradition.

 

Anyhow, I am familiar with Michael Davies and admire his work which I have encountered.  I would appreciate seeing his comments on the subject.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

There is relatively little difficulty in recognizing the legitimate and unchanging Tradition of the Church, as already defined. Recognizing whether new formulations are in conformity with Tradition is far more difficult. Knowledgeable, good-willed people may very well disagree on such questions. It is not a simple matter of serving Tradition.

Anyhow, I am familiar with Michael Davies and admire his work which I have encountered. I would appreciate seeing his comments on the subject.

He dealt extensively with this subject in Apologia. Will post when I get home. My opinions are substantially the same as his, though he articulates them more effectively.