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

[Miriam_M]

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.

No, it is not "an Anglican perspective."  It is a Catholic perspective and teaching that the Pope is not unrestricted relative to already declared, already interpreted dogma. 

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.

But what he declared and enforced did not contradict the permanent deposit of faith.

Further, what you additionally quoted from Pius X is not problematic, simply because he and previous popes had not departed from the faith.  In the modern era, particularly with regard to V2, we have Popes behaving, speaking, and suggesting radical departures from the deposit of Faith. 

The bottom line is that you want to enlarge the circumscribed Rorate article to be other than what it is, and "therefore" argue against any dissent from ambiguous Papal statements and decisions.  The Rorate article is referring to a specific decision by the current papal office holder which suggests that he may just decide on his own to oppose Revelation "just because" he has the "authority" to do so.  He doesn't have the authority to do so.  That is the thesis of the blog article, and that thesis is theologically in line with Sacred Tradition.

[VeraeFidei]

Lol. Absolute monarchy is not Catholic. It is protestant idolatry.

[Christopher McAvoy]

If you want to just follow tradition just for God's sake be an Anglican.

Anglicans are for sissies, real men grow beards, build log cabins and become Eastern Orthodox.  With the type of ultramontanist position some take, I'm rather tempted to do that! Why, yes, I want the Pope of Rome as the head of the church, but not a super bishop to replace all other bishops who is judged by no one and can destroy traditional true teachings at whim. The Pope must serve the creator, not the creature.

[jovan66102]

Lol. Absolute monarchy is not Catholic. It is protestant idolatry.

How true! First 'codified' by the Calvinist King James VI&I in his Basilikon Doron, 1599.

[verenaerin]

Fr Issac Relyea talks about all of this starting at the 28 min. mark.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=11664.0

[FockeWulf]

*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.

Not what Pope Innocent III said....

"Pope Innocent III (1160-1216)

The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because "he who does not believe is already judged." (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'

(Sermo 4)
"

[FockeWulf]

All of the following rather presupposes that we have the capability of making such a determination on our own and need not make recourse to the authority of a future Pope alone for judgment. So I think your supposed principle is mistaken.

Juan Cardinal de Torquemada, O.P. (1388-1468)

Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.

(Summa de Ecclesia)

Pope Adrian VI (1459-1523)

If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

(Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).

Sylvester Prieras, O.P. (1456-1523)

What should be done in cases where the pope destroys the Church by his evil actions? . . . What should be done if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or state?

He would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion, and likewise to obey him in matters which are evil; on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous rebuke.

Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him."

It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands, orders or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates' abuse of authority stems also from natural law.

(Dialogus de Potestate Papae)

Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. (1469-1534)

It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.

(De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio)

Francisco Suarez S.J. (1548-1617)

If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence.

(De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542-1621)

Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.

(De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

Vatican I (1870)

For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

(Pastor Aeternus, cap. 4)

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.

(Letter to Bishop Brizen)

[1seeker]

...

These quotes were cleverly collected, but as you know the opposite side could present you with a comparable collection from the ultramontane perspective. For example Ignatius' "I shall believe that the white is black if the Church so commands it" presupposes that the Church guides our epistemology, not the other way around. Or Augustine's comment, that he would not believe Scripture unless the Church commanded it.

Also I have started an earlier thread showing that many Catholic authorities had disputed Papal infallibility:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=11855.0
This even included the 1860 British Catechism, which decried 'papal infallibility' as a Protestant propaganda concocted to embarrass Catholic ecclesiology.

Despite the fact of having put those historical comments in one place, am I to conclude that we must deny Papal infallibility? Despite the fact that many good and faithful Catholics utterly rejected it? No.

There is no point to these quotations, because of the Development of Doctrine. Vatican I has definitively spoken on this matter.

Likewise Vatican I has solemnly answered this thread. Nowhere in Vatican I is it allowed for us to reject the Pope when we feel like he says error. Pius X is often seen as the definitive interpreter of Vatican I, and he openly and unequivocally says:

"Do not sift through my words judging what you would or wouldn't accept."

This corroborates with many instances from Catholic history where Papal actions might've seemed unjust, like the suppression of the Jesuits, which was accepted meekly and without murmur or disobedience. Like it or not, that is the foundational element of our doctrine. We aren't Anglicans who just read the history books and follow tradition without impediment from some living authority. We have a living authority as constitutive part of what makes us Catholics, and that living authority must supervene on any books or historical records we may read.

[Kaesekopf]

Recall, it is forbidden to call into question the dogma of papal infallibility at this forum.

[Miriam_M]

am I to conclude that we must deny Papal infallibility?

I didn't read that from the quotes that were listed.  I read that (again) papal infallibility is a dogma of the Church that has a specific, limited definition.  The power of the papacy, and its infallibility, does not extend to denial of previously accepted Church dogma.  It never has, nor did the Second Vatican Council enlarge the prerogative of a Pope to do that, nor did any post-V2 Pope enlarge the definition of papal infallibility.  It is merely fictionally believed to have been (always) enlarged, out of ignorance, by many "conservative," pro-JP2 modern Catholics who made JP2 into some kind of a demi-god for emotional reasons, ascribing special import to all JP2 did, thought, breathed, imagined, and said, including informally.  They then applied that false ultramontanism to successive Popes, including Francis, holding a false standard of Catholicity up to lay Catholics by demanding blind assent to Francis' most scandalous and outlandish pronouncements, none so far which have been infallible (formal teaching on faith/morals).

[VeraeFidei]

...

These quotes were cleverly collected, but as you know the opposite side could present you with a comparable collection from the ultramontane perspective. For example Ignatius' "I shall believe that the white is black if the Church so commands it" presupposes that the Church guides our epistemology, not the other way around. Or Augustine's comment, that he would not believe Scripture unless the Church commanded it.

Also I have started an earlier thread showing that many Catholic authorities had disputed Papal infallibility:
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=11855.0
This even included the 1860 British Catechism, which decried 'papal infallibility' as a Protestant propaganda concocted to embarrass Catholic ecclesiology.

Despite the fact of having put those historical comments in one place, am I to conclude that we must deny Papal infallibility? Despite the fact that many good and faithful Catholics utterly rejected it? No.

There is no point to these quotations, because of the Development of Doctrine. Vatican I has definitively spoken on this matter.

Likewise Vatican I has solemnly answered this thread. Nowhere in Vatican I is it allowed for us to reject the Pope when we feel like he says error. Pius X is often seen as the definitive interpreter of Vatican I, and he openly and unequivocally says:

"Do not sift through my words judging what you would or wouldn't accept."

This corroborates with many instances from Catholic history where Papal actions might've seemed unjust, like the suppression of the Jesuits, which was accepted meekly and without murmur or disobedience. Like it or not, that is the foundational element of our doctrine. We aren't Anglicans who just read the history books and follow tradition without impediment from some living authority. We have a living authority as constitutive part of what makes us Catholics, and that living authority must supervene on any books or historical records we may read.

Anglicans do not follow tradition. That is a much bigger problem than their non-acceptance of papal infallibility.

[FockeWulf]

I provided a host of quotes that directly undermined your notion that the pope must always be obeyed without condition, and you respond by simply denying that reality and providing a few of your own which in no way refers directly nor specifically to the papacy, but rather the Church as a whole.

You're either ascribing far too much authority to the papacy or trying to undermine belief in the doctrine of infallibility.

I can therefore take your opinion and what seems to amount to a radical ultramontanist position as gospel, or I can rather take the reasoned determinations of Theologians and the pronouncements of Popes.

I think I'll take the latter.

I find it bemusing that Pope Pius IX would say immediately in the wake of the First Vatican Council not to follow a future pope who teaches error if Vatican 1, which he had just presided over, expressly taught that such was forbidden.

[1seeker]

I didn't read that from the quotes that were listed.  I read that (again) papal infallibility is a dogma of the Church that has a specific, limited definition.

I do not undermine infallibility, as per KK's post, but the fact is those quotes do. There was a consistent stream of Catholic thought through the centuries, which did deny infallibility. It's a matter of historical record.

But that doesn't mean for us that the debate on infallibility is "still open." That's what Vatican I did, decide that issue once and for all.

Therefore the dogma is true, but the existence of prior quotes to the contrary is no less true.

[1seeker]

I provided a host of quotes that directly undermined your notion that the pope must always be obeyed without condition

Yes and I provided a host of quotes that opposed papal infallibility. Neither those quotes, nor yours, are relevant any longer, and have been made obsolete.

You're either ascribing far too much authority to the papacy or trying to undermine belief in the doctrine of infallibility.

I'm ascribing to the papacy an authority that was solemnly declared by the Nineteenth Century Popes, starting with the heroic Leo XIII, culminating with St. Pius X, and enshrined in Vatican I.

If you can find quotes that say we can disobey Popes post Vatican I, then you will have a better case. But Saint Pius X will contradict you, for he says his words must be obeyed without sifting or judgment, but ipso facto from his office as pope. You have to take up your issue with St. Pius X.

Your quotes disputing this, from 500 years ago, are no less potent than other quotes from 500 years ago that dispute papal infallibility. Those days are gone.

[FockeWulf]

Again your quotes refer to the teachings of the Church, which we know are infallible and to be adhered to, as it amounts to Tradition which is to be upheld.

Your quote of Pope St. Pius X: "Do not sift through my words judging what you would or wouldn't accept," is in no way specific nor is the context known. The context of the quotes I provided is very clearly about a situation wherein a Pope teaches heresy or attempts to destroy or subvert the Church.

You are attempting to create a contradiction between teaching prior to the first Vatican Council and that declared at the Council, but there is no contradiction, namely for two reasons.

1. The doctrine of infallibility is expressly limited. The First Vatican Council creates very specific conditions for when that is, which any theologian worth his salt knows well, and which doesn't include every word from the mouth of the man on faith or morals. There clearly remains both the possibility for the Pope to teach error and the subsequent necessity for him to be rebuked. This is not only the opinions of learned theologians and previous Popes but is inherently Scriptural, evinced when Paul rebuked Peter. I believe it was Aquinas who writes of this instance in particular as a justification for the licitness of rebuking a superior. Peter being the first Pope, there happens to be a indisputable Scriptural precedent for the Pope having to be reigned in by others of the faithful when he is in error.

2. Your argument becomes decidedly absurd when it is understood that the very same Pope who presided over the First Vatican Council subsequently said in writing that a Pope ought to be ignored when he teaches error. That would be like Pius IX stating that the Immaculate Conception if up for debate after Infallibly defining the dogma. What this proves is that the notion that we must adhere to a false obedience and must never rebuke or ignore the false teachings of a Pope is incorrect.