Popes, Anti-Popes and the Papacy

Since we have had a few posters over the past couple of years who have a slanted idea of what constitutes the Catholic Church, and the Papacy, I thought I’d shed a little light on a couple of issues. Attacks against the Pope and the Papacy have been something that the Catholic Church has lived with since Peter was first appointed to the position by our Lord Himself. Today we see attacks on the Pope, and his authority from three very different sources.

Non-Catholics attack the Pope from various different angles. Some like the High Church Anglicans, Old Catholics, and the Orthodox Churches profess that no bishop has any authority over any other bishop or over their subjects except when all the bishops of the world meet in an Ecumenical Council. Most Anglicans and Orthodox deny that an Ecumenical Council can be held until the Church East and West re-unites. Low Church Anglicans and most Protestants simply refuse the constant teaching of the Church that when our Lord changed St. Peter’s name from Simon to Kephas, (Petros in greek, Rock or Peter in english.) that He would build or found His Church on Peter that He was really speaking to or about Peter. They overlook the commission of Christ to Peter to feed His Lambs and Sheep, or any other authority that Jesus gave to St. Peter.

Ultra-Liberal Catholics have all sorts of things to say about the Pope, most not very Christian, or loving. They deny that he has any authority over them, and tell us that he is too old fashioned and needs to get with the times. They will tell you that the Pope needs to stay out of people’s bedrooms, and give in to the ordination of women and open practicing homosexuals, The deny various core beliefs that the Church has held for nearly 2000 years. One wonders why if the Pope has no authority to tell them what to do, they continue to call themselves Catholics. They say it is because they want to reclaim their voice and power, and turn the Church into a democracy. Some pay lip service to the Pope, but claim that you don’t have to listen to anything the Pope says unless it is Ex-Cathedra, and since so few doctrines have been proclaimed in that manner, there is little they do not question or reject.

On the Far right there are those who one would think would be strong supporters of the Pope and the Papacy. However this is far from the reality. Some have openly proclaimed that the believe all Popes from Pope John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI were never really Popes. One groups says that Pope John XXIII was a secret Mason, they have no real proof, and since the Church holds that there can be no person or group who can judge the Pope, or depose him from his post, they are on very shaky ground making the assertion that any Pope who having been validly elected is judged by them to not be the Pope. Another problem with this perculiar set of people is that they say Pope John XXIII having been a mason was excommunicated so he could not be validly elected as Pope. The problem with this assertion is not just that they put themselves in the position to judge the Pope, but that Pope St. Pius X who was elected to the office when another Cardinal (Rampolla) who’s election was vetoed by the Autrian Cardinal on instructions of the then Emperor, who at that time had the right to veto changed the rules of the election of the Pope. Pope Pius X revoked the right to veto, and also made the rule that any Cardinal who had been excommunicated either by offical pronouncement or by an act which was unknown to the public would have the excommunication lifted and be a valid elector in the Conclave, as a valid elector, he was also a valid candidate. So even if Pope John had been a mason at the death of Pope Pius XII his excommunication was null, and he was a valid elector and candidate for the Papacy. Like the ultra liberals many of those who fall into this camp also proclaim that if the Pope did not proclaim something ex-cathedra, then you don’t have to follow him, or give any more credence to his statements than you would to any other Catholic, except of course themselves. They take from the Papal Office the authority and demand you follow them. Some of the groups have even gone to the extreme and claim to be the only Catholics left on earth, so they have presumed to elect their own Popes. In Nebraska there is a fellow, never ordained a deacon, or priest, let alone a bishop who calls himself Pope Michael I. There was a former Franciscan priest who claimed to be elected by fax, phone and internet who called himself Pope Pius XIII. In France there are three men who claim to be the True Pope, one a retired auto mechanic. But as there can only be one Pope at a time, we have to look at all the evidence, and as I write the only man who has any valid claim to the Papacy is Pope Benedict XVI.

So we have three major groups Catholic and Non-Catholic who deny the authority of the Pope, and claim it for themselves.

For the Catholic defention of what obedience Catholics owe to the Pope, please read this link, with special regard to section III and section IV with the discussion of St. Athanasius, and the Arian heresy since as many ultra-conservatives unlike St. Athanasius deny the authority of the Pope based on the crisis they claim to exist in the Church today. St. Athanasisius did not deny the authority of the Pope, he realized that the Pope had been misinformed and even if the Pope had held some semi-arian personal beliefs for a period of time, he had not proclaimed them as the doctrine of the Church. So St. Athanasius gave respect and honor to the Pope and did not proclaim himself chief over the Pope, or disobey him.