Pope Formosius's corpse was indeed dug out of his grave, dressed in papal robes, put on trial (accused of trumped up non-doctrinal political charges advanced against his defenseless corpse by his ecclesiastical in-house enemies) and convicted and deposed posthumously (a silly and vain attempt at revising history) and the corpse ordered to be thrown in the Tiber whence it was retrieved by a passing monk. A couple of popes later, the corpse was reburied by Theodore II in 11/897 and Formosius's status restored.
The Formosius affair had nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine or dogma but rather with the fact that Formosius was already bishop of some other diocese when he was elected pope (bishop of Rome) which is quite common thereafter for many bishops who change dioceses as they are promoted whether to the papacy or not. Moving from one diocese to another as a bishop was then known as "translation" and ostensibly forbidden by then existing (but not yet codified) Canon Law (sort of an early equivalent at that time of what was yet to be called Common Law in Britain).
The pending question of allmendream is whether Formosius or Stephen VI or VII had committed doctrinal error. The answer is clearly not, much less with the rigorous standards of Vatican I in the 1850s as to papal infallibility. That conciliar declaration has always riled up and been thoroughly misunderstood by those who are not of our Faith. They tend to be driven into a complete tizzy by the word "infallible" or to confuse infallible with sinless or impeccable (all popes have been sinners and for a spectacular example one could study on Alexander VI whose maiden name was Borgia and he is merely the most spectacular and by no means lonely except as to the rampaging nature of his misbehavior).
The story is covered verrrry briefly by distinguished British Catholic and historian Paul Johnson in his "The Papacy" republished by Barnes and Noble in 1997 and with particular attention to page 69 and to the brief description of the popes in question on page 213. Stephen VI or VII of 896-897 may have been many things but proclaimed and canonized a saint was not one of them and is unlikely to ever be before the end of the world and the Final Judgment at the very least.
All that having been said, our burden is not to prove that no pope has never been mistaken at all or even as to the Faith but that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) as successor of Peter, on a matter of faith and morals, and specifically invoking the extraordinary infallibility defined at Vatican I (in the 1850s) by the Council Fathers. This invocation has been made exactly three times: Pius IX defining such a council as infallible when acting in concert with the pope and under the same circumstances (1850s); Pius IX defining infallibly that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was conceived "alone of all her race (other than Jesus)" without her soul bearing the mark of Original Sin (1850s after the very famous Marian apparitions on that subject to the child St. Bernadette Soubarous (sp.?) at Lourdes; and Pius XII in 1954 who defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heaven.
Allmendream and coldsteeltalon: This info is offered to both of you and anyone else with Christian fraternal respect and, while I disagree (in all likelihood with each of you as each of you likely disagree with me and other Catholics), that does not mean that I bear ill will toward you. May Christians, Catholic or Reformed, join together whenever possible and respect one another in all circumstances, in service to Him and His plan. May God bless both of you and all of yours for your sincere efforts in service to God and God's Word.
God bless NYer and Salvation and all of theirs for all of the magnificent work that both of you do for Jesus Christ and His Church here on FR. I try not to get in the middle of Catholic/Reformed controversies, as you both know. I have promised myself not to make a habit of this. You both deserve defense by all Catholics here.
NYer: Any word on whether Hubbard is likely to be replaced by a Catholic or who that successor may be?
I have no problem with people practicing their faith as they see fit. I am only making the argument that the Catholic Church (in the past) has had a history of persecuting others who did not agree with Catholic doctrine. Hence while I am a Christian, I could not be a Catholic knowing what was done to people with a different Christian viewpoint when the Church possessed power over governments of various nations. The Catholic Church has not had an unblemished history like many would believe.
And I certainly am for working together outside of our differences, especially on things like stopping abortion etc.
That said, it is disturbing that there are those who seem to take the bent that the Catholic Church is infallible as well as the Pope. History has plainly shown otherwise.
Seems that one or the other of Pope Stephen (called the sixth or the seventh posthumously) or Pope Formosius erred in regards to doctrine and morality.
Which one?
Now if the poster had said that no Pope ever erred when speaking “ex cathedra” I wouldn't have raised my objection. But to say that no Pope ever erred in regards to doctrines of faith or morality strains credulity to anyone knowledgeable of history.
Excellent post, by the way. The Borgia era, the “reign of the harlots”, and many other events should make one tremble at the unwarranted self pride necessary for a Catholic to say that no Pope ever made an error as far as doctrines of faith or morality.
Thanks for thinking and praying for us here in Albany. No word yet on who will replace Hubbard, or Rochester bishop Clark, his good friend from seminary. Both turn 75 in 2 more years. Please keep praying for us the Holy Father! Cent' Anni!