Is Pope Leo XIV a true pope or an anti-pope? etc.

[justjeff]

As I mentioned in my long New Member background post, I'm struggling, probably like millions of other people, unfortunately, with questions about who is currently the Vicar of Christ, if any, to whom we owe our trust and obedience?

If the Chair of Peter is vacant, how long has it been so?

If we are in sedevacantist mode, or if the waters are too muddied to know for sure, what are we to do? It sure feels as though we're in the situation where the shepherd is stricken or has deserted and the sheep are scattered, or are scattering.

In looking at the thread, True of False Pope I can see that there are numerous articles and books and videos and so on regarding this topic and from what I can tell opinions by knowledgable people, who certainly appear to be striving to find the Truth and to do His will, vary from one end of the spectrum to the other.

It is certainly an uncomfortable position to be in. We aren't supposed to be required to be great scholars to be faithful followers of Our Lord, indeed simple, humble children seem to have a leg up on everyone else. The majority of Catholics who are seeking to follow Christ are following Pope Leo XIV and it is hard to fault simple Catholics who so implicitly trust His Church, which the Sacred Scriptures tell us is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

But the most recent popes just as certainly seem to be contradicting the infallible teachings of the magisterial Church and truth cannot contradict truth.

This isn't some tangential topic that only theologians in ivory towers discuss, but something that affects the very core of the truth and the guidance and shepharding of the precious souls that Our Lord entrusted to His Apostles and their successors as the leaders of His Church, to whom he entrusted His deposit of faith, and whose edicts on binding and loosing are accepted even in heaven.

The Sacred Scriptures warn us against wolves in sheep's clothing and of false teachers who will call good evil and evil good, and that we are not to listen to even an angel from heaven who should proclaim such false doctrines.

and yet canon lawyers tell us that Vatican I infallibly teaches that no one can judge the pope... that in effect no one can evict a pope, presumably even if he is an outright heretic. They claim that this overrides saints and doctors of the Church who had previously expressed opinions to the contrary.

All of this seems to be quite a dilemma.

Recently a bishop has made a call for an imperfect council to elect a new, valid pope. I've heard from a sedevacantist priest that this can be done (and perhaps has a precedent?). It does seem that in the past the bishops, cardinals & laity have had a role in pressuring popes and anti-popes to step down. It is obviously a very messy situation.

What are your thoughts on this? Resources and recommendations are welcome, of course, but hopefully some can also proffer their own thoughts and how they currently see the situation, even if it is a viewpoint that may later be revised as further research, thought and prayer &/or circumstances warrant.

Sorry for the long rant, thank you for any contributions, thoughts, etc. that you may provide.

[Geremia]

What are your thoughts on this?

I think Leo XIV is at least validly elected, thus at least a material pope; cf. Des Lauriers, O.P.'s Cassiciacum thesis.

[justjeff]

What are your thoughts on this?

I think Leo XIV is at least validly elected, thus at least a material pope; cf. Des Lauriers, O.P.'s Cassiciacum thesis.

Thank you for your response and the link.

Does that mean that you are a sedeprivationist?
As a side note, I'm struggling a bit to follow along, as this is largely new territory for me & I'm not even familiar with the basic terms. For instance, I had to look up both "Pythagorean and its relationship to Freemasonry" and also sedeprivationism.

I haven't had time to read through most of the information on your link yet, but it appears to be a back and forth discussion with respect to sedeprivationism. For instance, it starts off with: Is sedeprivationism a revival of the Waldensians', Hus's, and Wycliffe's heresy?

If I understand it correctly, sedeprivationism seems somewhat similar to the situation the early Christians were faced with during the time of Christ.:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
...14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
...31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
(Matthew 23:1-3, 13-15, 31-33)

Of course the image of a viper is an allusion to Satan, and his spawn would be a brood of vipers. Our Lord makes that allusion even more specific in the Gospel of John:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

I've heard it said that we get the rulers that we deserve. In any event, we know that none would be rulers unless Our Lord at least acquiesced in letting them assume that position of leadership, as we see when Our Lord addressed Pontius Pilate:

Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above, (John 19-11).

The Church has always greatly valued obedience, even when orders are unfair and apparently against what we think Our Lord would will. Some examples would be saints who were prohibited from offering public Masses or hearing confessions. They always submitted to the will of their superiors, no matter how absurd or even seemingly in contravention to Our Lord's Great Commission to his Church.

and yet I struggle to understand how we are to have this play out in our own lives on a practical, day to day level. In yet other places Our Lord warns us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing:

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-20)

and St. Paul says:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that at some point there is a line that will be crossed when a false prophet/heretic is, or will be, in the Chair of Peter. We have already had at least one instance where a duly elected pope has been proclaimed a heretic, albeit after the fact:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

 Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. ...In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome" ...Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. ... The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

Though he died before the council concluded, Pope St. Agatho agreed with the council's proclamation of Pope Honorius as a heretic, & his successor, Pope Leo II in his letter of confirmation wrote ""We anathematize the inventors of the new error , that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

and in a letter to the Spanish bishops Pope Leo wrote: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh & eighth ecumenical councils... also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh

"He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact;"

We have had bad popes before, but even Pope Honorius was not a heretic "in intention". He was "just" negligent in defending the faith as was his duty. It seems to me that Pope Francis was intentionally trying to undermine the faith, and some are contending that Pope Leo XIV is also trying to undermine the faith, but is more subtle about it than his predecessor. I don't think there is any precedent for a pope or popes trying to destroy the faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

If that is true, would such a pope really be the pope? If the False Prophet or the Antichrist were to ascend to the throne would he in fact be the material pope?

[Geremia]

We have had bad popes before, but even Pope Honorius was not a heretic "in intention". He was "just" negligent in defending the faith as was his duty.

Correct. See what St. Robert Bellarmine says on Pope Honorius in Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih ch. 4.