"The Pope is not an absolute monarch" (Rorate); umm yes he is

[1seeker]

Another Rorate missive against Francis:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-pope-is-not-absolute-monarch-whose.html

As much as it may be unpopular to say among trads today, this is the absolute cornerstone of Catholic dogma!

*Where there is Peter there is the Church.
*Submission to the pontiff is absolutely necessary for human salvation.
*The Pope is the supreme canonical legislator.
*The Pope is answerable to no one on Earth.
*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

Have we forgotten what religion we are in? These used to be the absolute bedrock cornerstone beliefs among Catholics. Did it take just 1 bad Pope to lose faith in our religion, ie. these principles? Is this what the R&R and indult position end up in, our sitting over the Popes and deciding when or if they comport with our beliefs??

If you want to just follow tradition just for God's sake be an Anglican. Rorate is espousing an Anglican position. I don't know how to square these principles with Francis. But according to the above principles he is the supreme, the only legislator. He doesn't have to answer to us, to a piddly blog like Rorate, or the CDF. The CDF works for him.

[Older Salt]

Is the Pope God?

[Miriam_M]

*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

That would make him equivalent to Jesus Christ, which he is not.  Only God cannot be judged by anyone on Earth.

[1seeker]

*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

That would make him equivalent to Jesus Christ, which he is not.  Only God cannot be judged by anyone on Earth.

No, he can be judged by Jesus Christ. But he and only he is His vicar. Therefore none of us can judge him, only his Master can.

[1seeker]

Is the Pope God?

No but he is the Vicar of God. Remember?

[GloriaPatri]

*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

That would make him equivalent to Jesus Christ, which he is not.  Only God cannot be judged by anyone on Earth.

The notion that the first See is judged by no one (on Earth) is a very old principle. It does not, however, exclude the Pope from being judged by God, who is not on Earth.

[Miriam_M]

*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

That would make him equivalent to Jesus Christ, which he is not.  Only God cannot be judged by anyone on Earth.

The notion that the first See is judged by no one (on Earth) is a very old principle. It does not, however, exclude the Pope from being judged by God, who is not on Earth.

I think my problem is with the word "judged," which can be interpreted variously.   Obviously a pope is the sole vicar.  And obviously also no human being can be ultimately judged by anyone except God.  That includes lay people.  However, the notion that the Pope is above human judgment entirely is problematic, when stated absolutely and without a context, because only God is beyond human judgment.  That was my point.

[Miriam_M]

On my revisiting the Rorate blog article linked in the OP, my suspicions are confirmed.  The subtitle of the article was omitted:

an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law

Absolute secular monarchs in political history ascribed to themselves a kind of totalitarian divine privilege by which they unilaterally exempted themselves from scrutiny (human judgment).  The monarchical privilege of a Roman Catholic Pope is actually limited by the deposit of faith itself. 

(1) A Pope is not free, even as a monarch, to oppose the deposit of faith or to challenge revelation.  That would obviously include previous settled dogma, not to mention the Commandments of God.
(2) A Pope's every "thought and desire" does not have the binding power of dogma behind it from simply his position of Vicar.

That was the sense of the article and the "authoritarianism" referenced therein.

[GloriaPatri]

*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

That would make him equivalent to Jesus Christ, which he is not.  Only God cannot be judged by anyone on Earth.

The notion that the first See is judged by no one (on Earth) is a very old principle. It does not, however, exclude the Pope from being judged by God, who is not on Earth.

I think my problem is with the word "judged," which can be interpreted variously.   Obviously a pope is the sole vicar.  And obviously also no human being can be ultimately judged by anyone except God.  That includes lay people.  However, the notion that the Pope is above human judgment entirely is problematic, when stated absolutely and without a context, because only God is beyond human judgment.  That was my point.

I think the intended meaning of the word "judged" here refers to the juridicial act of judging. In other words, there is no tribunal on this Earth than can legitimately judge a sitting pope when he exercises his apostolic ministry. However, a pope can still be subject to moral judgements of a more subjective nature. For example, I can judge many of Francis' actions and words to be either imprudent, or just outright bad. However, such a judgement is purely subjective and carries no canonical force.

[Miriam_M]

GP,
Please refer to my Reply #7.  The sense of the article is entirely missing in the OP.   My Reply #7 explains it all.

[1seeker]

Absolute secular monarchs in political history ascribed to themselves a kind of totalitarian divine privilege by which they unilaterally exempted themselves from scrutiny (human judgment).

As I'm sure you know, the Popes in history has precisely ascribed to themselves such an absolute monarchy over the whole world. And yep, divinely mandated.

A Pope is not free, even as a monarch, to oppose the deposit of faith or to challenge revelation.  That would obviously include previous settled dogma, not to mention the Commandments of God.

The problem with that is that it assumes we can know what faith and dogma and disciplines are apart from the Pope. But it has always been taught that the Pope is the only true interpreter of Canon law. He is the only true interpreter of what divine revelation is. Assuming we can rely on the text itself, it's plain and literal meaning, is again a Protestant and specifically Anglican perspective.

(2) A Pope's every "thought and desire" does not have the binding power of dogma behind it from simply his position of Vicar.

What if he were St. Pius X? Because that is indeed how he had subjected the whole church to himself. While not making every word defined ex cathedra, in practice he made the Liberals bow and kneel to him. he taught that those who say "we only need obey his ex cathedra definitions" were modernists and heretics. His private letters (eg. Notre Charge Apostolique) crushed heretics and de facto did have the force of dogma.

See this thread, St. Pius X on obedience due to a Pope
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=11164.0

Where St. Pius says this:
"when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."

[queen.saints]

Another Rorate missive against Francis:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-pope-is-not-absolute-monarch-whose.html

As much as it may be unpopular to say among trads today, this is the absolute cornerstone of Catholic dogma!

*Where there is Peter there is the Church.
*Submission to the pontiff is absolutely necessary for human salvation.
*The Pope is the supreme canonical legislator.
*The Pope is answerable to no one on Earth.
*The Pope can be judged by no one on Earth.

Have we forgotten what religion we are in? These used to be the absolute bedrock cornerstone beliefs among Catholics. Did it take just 1 bad Pope to lose faith in our religion, ie. these principles? Is this what the R&R and indult position end up in, our sitting over the Popes and deciding when or if they comport with our beliefs??

If you want to just follow tradition just for God's sake be an Anglican. Rorate is espousing an Anglican position. I don't know how to square these principles with Francis. But according to the above principles he is the supreme, the only legislator. He doesn't have to answer to us, to a piddly blog like Rorate, or the CDF. The CDF works for him.

Hopefully we had stronger foundations than that. Talk about building your house upon sand.

[jovan66102]

His private letters (eg. Notre Charge Apostolique) crushed heretics and de facto did have the force of dogma.

Notre Charge Apostolique was hardly a 'private letter'. It was an Encyclical directed to the French Hierarchy. Note such phrases as, 'We have long debated, Venerable Brethren, before We decided to solemnly and publicly speak Our mind on the Sillon.' Hardly the words of a 'private letter'.

[1seeker]

His private letters (eg. Notre Charge Apostolique) crushed heretics and de facto did have the force of dogma.

Notre Charge Apostolique was hardly a 'private letter'. It was an Encyclical directed to the French Hierarchy. Note such phrases as, 'We have long debated, Venerable Brethren, before We decided to solemnly and publicly speak Our mind on the Sillon.' Hardly the words of a 'private letter'.

So if we don't find ex cathedra definitions attached to it, are we allowed to skip it over? No because St. Pius presupposed a degree of reverence due to his Seat, his office and all his declarations.

[jovan66102]

So if we don't find ex cathedra definitions attached to it, are we allowed to skip it over? No because St. Pius presupposed a degree of reverence due to his Seat, his office and all his declarations.

All I was doing was pointing out that Notre Charge Apostolique was not a 'private letter', but obviously we cannot 'skip over' an Encyclical. Encyclical Letters are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, definitive, but not necessarily infallible. In fact, without the Ordinary Magisterium expressed in them, we would have no denunciation of socialism (PP Leo XIII), communism, or Naziism (PP Pius XI), just to name a few off the top of my head.