St. Pius X on obedience due to a Pope

[Quaremerepulisti]

Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI justified the Assisi events based on the teachings of Vatican II.  Therefore it follows that to accept the teachings of Vatican II, and their correct meaning as explained by these Popes; we must accept the Assisi events.

No, it doesn't follow.  John Paul II and Benedict XVI may have been wrong in their justification.

[Michael Wilson]

Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI justified the Assisi events based on the teachings of Vatican II.  Therefore it follows that to accept the teachings of Vatican II, and their correct meaning as explained by these Popes; we must accept the Assisi events.

No, it doesn't follow.  John Paul II and Benedict XVI may have been wrong in their justification.

They were there at the Council, took part in the deliberations and redaction of the documents; and were the teachers of the whole Church as Popes; and whose pontificates were dedicated to the implementation of the teachings of the Council. I think it is safe to say that they are right.

[Quaremerepulisti]

They were there at the Council, took part in the deliberations and redaction of the documents; and were the teachers of the whole Church as Popes; and whose pontificates were dedicated to the implementation of the teachings of the Council.

Yes.

I think it is safe to say that they are right.

No it is not "safe" in the sense that I mean.  Assisi was not an authoritative (e.g. binding) act of the Papacy.  It is an individual act, and not a Papal one.  It is analogous to John XXII denying the Beatific Vision until after the last judgment.

[1seeker]

There has to be an "order" or "demand".

There are two kinds of orders: orders of example (where a person of honor performs an action thereby enjoining on you the same action in order to strive after his honor), and the orders of command whereby the person of honor tells you do X.

First of all it is clear that the Popes have issued on the faithful the orders of example: they have done actions X, Y, and Z as vicars of Christ the successors of Christ and the sole captains of the barque of Peter upon the earth. Our orders from God are to strive after his Successors, "be as holy as I am holy." St Pius would say our job is not to quibble and weigh which actions from the Pope should or should not be our examples.

Secondly it is clear that they have issued the orders of command, in recommending their actions to the faithful, telling the Church that these actions ought to be done, praising those who do them and chastising those who do not.

Thirdly, sedevacantists and the old historians of the school of St. Pius X would deny that John XXII ever did deny the beatific vision, as an error among hostile historians and a Protestant propaganda. Therefore there isn't and has never been any danger in following the Popes example.

[Michael Wilson]

They were there at the Council, took part in the deliberations and redaction of the documents; and were the teachers of the whole Church as Popes; and whose pontificates were dedicated to the implementation of the teachings of the Council.

Yes.

I think it is safe to say that they are right.

No it is not "safe" in the sense that I mean.  Assisi was not an authoritative (e.g. binding) act of the Papacy.  It is an individual act, and not a Papal one.  It is analogous to John XXII denying the Beatific Vision until after the last judgment.

An "individual act?" There have been 4 already and Pope Francis has called for another one, not to mention the "copy-cat" events that have been enacted in many diocese throughout the world since then.   Assisi was not an isolated event without any relation to the Council or the magisterium; it was a "Catechesis", "a visible manifestation of the "radical unity of the human race";  as J.P. II  explained its theological significance  in his end of the year address to the Cardinals in 1986.  I have a poor quality copy of this address in my paper files[from the l'O.R]. If you want one, P.M. Me your address and I will send it to you.
Also, Prof. Johannes Dorman carefully documented from J.P. II's own teachings,  the theological significance of Assisi in his 4 volume set: "Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions In Assisi"; Angelus Press; The meeting was a direct result of J.P. II's own "Theological Synthesis" of Vatican II published in book form when he was still a Cardinal under the tittle of "The Sources of Renewal". Its pretty clear that for the Popes, these events were not random, but directly flowed from the principles and teachings of Vatican II.

[Quaremerepulisti]

There are two kinds of orders: orders of example (where a person of honor performs an action thereby enjoining on you the same action in order to strive after his honor), and the orders of command whereby the person of honor tells you do X.

No, there are not: not in the sense of "order" that we mean.  The only relevant sense of "order" is when the Pope binds the faithful (i.e. the whole Church) to assent to doctrine X or perform act Y.  This point is essential to distinguishing proper religious submission from neo-Catholic excess.

First of all it is clear that the Popes have issued on the faithful the orders of example: they have done actions X, Y, and Z as vicars of Christ the successors of Christ and the sole captains of the barque of Peter upon the earth. Our orders from God are to strive after his Successors, "be as holy as I am holy." St Pius would say our job is not to quibble and weigh which actions from the Pope should or should not be our examples.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  I suppose we should emulate the cowardice of Liberius and Honorius or the licentiousness of Alexander VI?

Secondly it is clear that they have issued the orders of command, in recommending their actions to the faithful, telling the Church that these actions ought to be done, praising those who do them and chastising those who do not.

A recommendation is not the same thing as an order.

Thirdly, sedevacantists and the old historians of the school of St. Pius X would deny that John XXII ever did deny the beatific vision, as an error among hostile historians and a Protestant propaganda. Therefore there isn't and has never been any danger in following the Popes example.

History revisionism.  There are Thomists who will deny that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception, even though he clearly did.  Anyway, I guess there was no danger in following Liberius and Honorius.  Oh wait, maybe that's "Protestant propaganda" as well...   

[Quaremerepulisti]

An "individual act?" There have been 4 already and Pope Francis has called for another one, not to mention the "copy-cat" events that have been enacted in many diocese throughout the world since then.   

That's not the sense of "individual" (e.g "isolated") that is meant here.  By acting as "Pope" rather than as "individual" I mean binding the whole Church to assent to doctrine X or practice act Y.

Assisi was not an isolated event without any relation to the Council or the magisterium; it was a "Catechesis", "a visible manifestation of the "radical unity of the human race";  as J.P. II  explained its theological significance  in his end of the year address to the Cardinals in 1986. 

So what?  The Popes are simply not infallible in matters of prudential judgment.

The meeting was a direct result of J.P. II's own "Theological Synthesis" of Vatican II published in book form when he was still a Cardinal under the tittle of "The Sources of Renewal". Its pretty clear that for the Popes, these events were not random, but directly flowed from the principles and teachings of Vatican II.

Notice the bold?  So this was not done while he was Pope.

Assisi is simply not an act which demands religious submission because the whole Church is not being bound to anything.  Virtue lies in the middle between denial of proper religious submission and neo-Catholic excess.

[Michael Wilson]

Quarem,
thanks for the response.
I posted too quickly (per usual); Re. The Dorman volumes: #1. Is a commentary on the retreat given to the Papal Household by Cardinal Wojtila and latter published under the tittle of "Under a sign of Contradiction".  Vol. II On the his Encyclical "Redemptor Hominis"; Vol III on "Dives in Misericordia"; Vol IV on "Dominum et Vivificantem".  The reference to "Sources of Renewal" was from a separate article published in the Italian traditionalist review "SiSiNoNo".
The teachings of Encyclicals do bind the members of the Church.
I will get back with specific references from J.P. II on the link between Vatican II and Assisi when I have time.

[1seeker]

The only relevant sense of "order" is when the Pope binds the faithful (i.e. the whole Church) to assent to doctrine X or perform act Y.  This point is essential to distinguishing proper religious submission from neo-Catholic excess.

You are reading the words of St. Pius with the burned cynical hindsight glasses of 60 years of modernist horrors. There was no neo-Catholicism in the days of St. Pius.

He does not offer us any qualifiers for his statements. Indeed his statements are explicitly and militantly un-qualified -- we are never allowed to pick and choose or qualify his words, according to the words of St. Pius.

I am asking if we should qualify his words, if he was wrong to be so unqualified in his statements. But you can't revise history and say he didn't say what he clearly said. The clear words of St. Pius are that we must not sift through Papal words and examples picking and choosing what we follow.

His orders are-- if the Pope enjoins it, it is holy and we should submit.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.  I suppose we should emulate the cowardice of Liberius and Honorius or the licentiousness of Alexander VI?

These are a red herring. The historiography of St. Pius has addressed and cleared away those examples. Licentiousness of the Borgia popes is dismissed as not pertaining to faith and morals, and the failings of Liberius and Honorius are moral, not theological/doctrinal. There was no danger in following the doctrines and teachings of those Popes, or even of the Borgia Popes -- there was never any danger in following any doctrinal teachings of any Popes.

You may disagree, but you can't wave it away with one hand. You need to engage a deep study of history because this argument was made from history. You can find it on Sedevacantist websites, and it was made by heavy turn-of-the-century theological heavyweights, all in support of the papacy of St. Pius X who enforced a submission from the Liberals using this argument of unqualified submission.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You are reading the words of St. Pius with the burned cynical hindsight glasses of 60 years of modernist horrors. There was no neo-Catholicism in the days of St. Pius.

And, so?  Why am I not allowed to take the past 60 years into account in formulating my viewpoint?  St. Pius X was also dealing with modernist horrors in his day, which almost certainly influenced his view.

He does not offer us any qualifiers for his statements. Indeed his statements are explicitly and militantly un-qualified -- we are never allowed to pick and choose or qualify his words, according to the words of St. Pius.

I am asking if we should qualify his words, if he was wrong to be so unqualified in his statements. But you can't revise history and say he didn't say what he clearly said. The clear words of St. Pius are that we must not sift through Papal words and examples picking and choosing what we follow.

His orders are-- if the Pope enjoins it, it is holy and we should submit.

Then St. Pius X was wrong, if you are interpreting him correctly (which I don't think you are).  If a Pope wants to sell benefices to the highest bidder (which has happened), this isn't "holy" just because the Pope enjoins it.  If a Pope wants to sell Indulgences, this also isn't "holy" just because the Pope enjoins it.

These are a red herring. The historiography of St. Pius has addressed and cleared away those examples. Licentiousness of the Borgia popes is dismissed as not pertaining to faith and morals, and the failings of Liberius and Honorius are moral, not theological/doctrinal. There was no danger in following the doctrines and teachings of those Popes, or even of the Borgia Popes -- there was never any danger in following any doctrinal teachings of any Popes.

Fine, but you didn't make this distinction before.  You are now restricting the obedience to doctrinal teachings.  Which I agree with, when we restrict this to doctrinal teachings made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church.  (John XXII's preaching about the beatific vision doesn't qualify, because he was only operating in his capacity as a preacher and not as a Pope, binding the Church.)

[1seeker]

And, so?  Why am I not allowed to take the past 60 years into account in formulating my viewpoint?

Because it isn't your viewpoint we are interested in, with all due respect.

We would like to ask for the best way to think of the words of St. Pius X, as pertains to Church History. Was the historiography of his time (on which modern sedevacantists rely) concerning the Papacy wrong, right, or something in the middle.

"I am asking if we should qualify his words, if he was wrong to be so unqualified in his statements."

Then St. Pius X was wrong, if you are interpreting him correctly

Ok, I appreciate your candor on this.

Fine, but you didn't make this distinction before.  You are now restricting the obedience to doctrinal teachings.  Which I agree with, when we restrict this to doctrinal teachings made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church.

They did not restrict obedience they demanded just to the ex cathedra formula. You see, St. Pius did not limit obedience to himself only for statements "made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church." He had written many pastoral letters, and instituted many private and/or public disciplinary actions. On all of these he expected absolute obedience. There were a thousand actions which to you would seem to be "non-binding." The liberals also considered them non-binding and continued to perpetuate their heresies, because "he had not spoken ex cathedra." His response to them was that anything he did simpliciter, when it concerned the faith, was to be honored and followed ipso facto, from his position as the sole captain of the barque of Peter upon the Earth. That was his argument, like it or not, and that of Leo XIII before him, and Pius IX, and the Popes succeeding him leading up to Vatican II.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Because it isn't your viewpoint we are interested in, with all due respect.

Well, actually you are.

We would like to ask for the best way to think of the words of St. Pius X, as pertains to Church History.

I don't see why the past 60 years should be sent down an Orwellian memory hole in order to come to the conclusion as to what the "best way to think" is.

Was the historiography of his time (on which modern sedevacantists rely) concerning the Papacy wrong, right, or something in the middle.

Probably something in the middle.

They did not restrict obedience they demanded just to the ex cathedra formula.

And neither do I.  Ex cathedra formulas demand the assent of faith, but other authoritative teachings demand the assent of obedience (religious submission).

You see, St. Pius did not limit obedience to himself only for statements "made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church." He had written many pastoral letters, and instituted many private and/or public disciplinary actions. On all of these he expected absolute obedience. There were a thousand actions which to you would seem to be "non-binding."

His Encyclicals were binding.  Most of the instances you allude to above were binding.

His response to them was that anything he did simpliciter, when it concerned the faith, was to be honored and followed ipso facto, from his position as the sole captain of the barque of Peter upon the Earth. That was his argument, like it or not, and that of Leo XIII before him, and Pius IX, and the Popes succeeding him leading up to Vatican II.

Well, St. Pius X was clearly wrong, as were the Popes before him, if he expected a mindless obedience and following on absolutely anything.  St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  He did not mindlessly follow St. Peter.

[Miriam_M]

Saw this in a comment on a blog.

St. Pius X on obedience due to him and the office of the Pope in general:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey 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.

What are we to think about this in the context of the current and last 2-3 Pontificates?

This all assumes the Pope has not dissented from that which he receives his authority.

Precisely. 

We are also not to make a god out of a Pope.  He is a Vicar by title and function.  He is not in his personhood a divine incarnation. 

I'd like to ask the OP:  Which "orders and demands" have any Popes of modern history issued which traditional Catholics have "refused to obey"?  We are not bound to follow any particular Pope's personal preferences or priorities when those have nothing to do with his teaching office (faith and morals).  Because certain Popes constantly flirt with modernism in their speech, coming just short of embracing heresy, does not mean we have to "love" that ambiguous behavior and speech of theirs.  Some of us find it irresponsible and confusing, possibly deliberately so.

However, more troubling probably to me are the hierarchy below the Pope who have dissented from Tradition.  They are the ones who have led the charge into outright error while Popes watched and did nothing but smiled, held court with the secular press, and pretended there was no crisis.  I also don't find that absent style of leadership terribly "lovable," either.  It isn't a Christ-like form of leadership; you won't find it in the Gospels as something to emulate.

[dellery]

And, so?  Why am I not allowed to take the past 60 years into account in formulating my viewpoint?

Because it isn't your viewpoint we are interested in, with all due respect.

We would like to ask for the best way to think of the words of St. Pius X, as pertains to Church History. Was the historiography of his time (on which modern sedevacantists rely) concerning the Papacy wrong, right, or something in the middle.

"I am asking if we should qualify his words, if he was wrong to be so unqualified in his statements."

Then St. Pius X was wrong, if you are interpreting him correctly

Ok, I appreciate your candor on this.

Fine, but you didn't make this distinction before.  You are now restricting the obedience to doctrinal teachings.  Which I agree with, when we restrict this to doctrinal teachings made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church.

They did not restrict obedience they demanded just to the ex cathedra formula. You see, St. Pius did not limit obedience to himself only for statements "made as Pope, in his authority as Pope, with the intent of binding the Church." He had written many pastoral letters, and instituted many private and/or public disciplinary actions. On all of these he expected absolute obedience. There were a thousand actions which to you would seem to be "non-binding." The liberals also considered them non-binding and continued to perpetuate their heresies, because "he had not spoken ex cathedra." His response to them was that anything he did simpliciter, when it concerned the faith, was to be honored and followed ipso facto, from his position as the sole captain of the barque of Peter upon the Earth. That was his argument, like it or not, and that of Leo XIII before him, and Pius IX, and the Popes succeeding him leading up to Vatican II.

1Seeker,

Context is key here, as you're making it look like Pope St. Pius X taught that he was the ultimate authority in the Church, answerable to no higher power.
Are we to assume Pope St. Pius X held an orthodox view on the Papacy, or a heterodox one?

If we are to assume, correctly, that St. Pius X held an orthodox view of his office, than he could not have possibly meant that he could never be opposed.
So there is a deeper context to the quote of topic. You cannot just say: "see, St. Pius X said that the disobedient liberals and modernists of his time had to obey him without reservation, so now we must without reservation obey these same liberals and modernists now that some of them have attained the Papacy".

If St. Pius X authoritatively condemned liberals and modernists, how can they turn around and command us to follow them, without first severing themselves from the very Papal authority they would bludgeon us with?

If St. Pius X was right in demanding liberals and modernists cease their heterodox ways, how in the world can one logically claim that those who ignored St. Pius X, and in the climate after his death resurrected the beliefs he explicitly condemned, now deserve our unquestioned obedience according to the same argument he used to demand obedience from them?

This all devalues the papacy to the level of worldly leadership, and totally ignores the fact that the Pope has a super-natural mission to preserve the Faith as handed down from Christ and the Apostles.

The whole premise of this argument basically implies St. Pius X had a heterodox view of the Papacy that saw obedience to every whim of the Pope as being greater than the 1st Commandment.
Nothing but sophistry.

[1seeker]

Context is key here, as you're making it look like Pope St. Pius X taught that he was the ultimate authority in the Church, answerable to no higher power.

That would seem to be the view around his time. It is not me making it seem so.

Are we to assume Pope St. Pius X held an orthodox view on the Papacy, or a heterodox one?

If we are to assume, correctly, that St. Pius X held an orthodox view of his office, than he could not have possibly meant that he could never be opposed.

Of course he had an orthodox view, but why would St. Pius need to make room for opposition to himself, when he was precisely trying to squash all opposition, and Catholic historiography of the time established that Popes had never caused harm to the faithful in matters of faith?

So there is a deeper context to the quote of topic. You cannot just say: "see, St. Pius X said that the disobedient liberals and modernists of his time had to obey him without reservation, so now we must without reservation obey these same liberals and modernists now that some of them have attained the Papacy".

Oh I am about as far from saying that as you can imagine. I'm merely trying to set the modern Papacy in the context of prior Papacies, to discern the way forward.