Ultramontism and Papal Infallibility

[Rad Trad]

According to ultramontist ecclesiology the pope is infallible in all his documents, doctrinal, pastoral, and disciplinary when promulgated to the universal Church.  I maintain this is not the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, but I am open to being more educated or corrected on this subject.

What Magisterial documents clearly teach this?

[KreKre]

I tend to think that popes are human, like all of us, and thus prone to error and corruption. The devil tempts the pope much more than he tempts any of us. To tell the truth, I'm not entirely comfortable accepting the Vatican I teachings on infallibility. However, I do accept it, because it is a dogma and I do not have the authority to question it. Besides, its fruits have been good so far (all the great popes used their infallibility responsibly and for great good), so, at least it seems to me,  whether one accepts it is a purely academic exercise, without any consequences on the real world. I just don't think it was necessary, especially given the fact it is a fairly recent novelty - the Church was perfectly fine for almost 2000 years without it.

That said, I do think we owe the pope obedience on all things (and this was true even before infallibility was defined as a dogma), as he is the supreme pontiff, with sovereign authority - very much like a king. However, all rightful authority must be obeyed only as long as it does not command something a Christian cannot obey. A great example of this is the story of the Theban legion in the third century. They were great warriors, loyal and obedient to the Roman emperor Maximilian, but when the emperor commanded them to kill innocent Christians, they disobeyed and accepted martyrdom. Many saints belonged to this legion, including St. Mauritius, St. Innocent, and others... They are venerated as an example of good obedience.

I think the highest authority in the Church, after God, of course, is the tradition. So the Church should be very resistant to change. This is a theologically sound position, because we know that God is unchanging - the Divine Nature lacks any potential, it is pure act. Even though He is omnipotent, he cannot change His mind on anything. Therefore, what bore good fruits for hundreds of years ought to be kept, because if it ever was conforming to God, it will forever conform to God. Holy things do not become unholy. Change is the nature of this world, and we know who rules this world. So when the current pope is in contradiction with a previous pope, all things being equal, the authority of the older pope should take precedence. As I said before, it is not my place to rebuke the pope, I wouldn't dare to assume that authority as that would be prideful beyond words. But when he is rebuked by all the popes before him, and all the saints and doctors of the Church, then I am in good company when I disobey him, like a soldier in the Theban legion, in the company of St. Mauritius. I don't have a problem recognizing his supreme authority, when I disobey him.

But that is my personal opinion. I have great respect for sedevacantists - I don't know of any sedevacantist who is a sedevacantist because of not wanting to obey the pope. All of the sedevacantists I know would want nothing more than there to be a good pope whom they can obey. There is nothing schismatic about that. This position is logically sound, I see no contradiction with it. I just think they are mistaken. But I also think that, in our time, this whole sedevacantism vs. sedeplenism debate is mostly academic, and without significant real world consequences. Does it really matter, in any practical way, if Francis is really the pope or not? I would say no, as he certainly does not act like a pope.

[Rad Trad]

Really good points. Though I think the extent of papal infallibility question is important because when it's distorted in people's minds they can fall into error in any direction, for some leaving the Church. 

Re SVism, I'll leave that discussion to the SV subforum.

I'm searching if there are Magisterial documents that show that ultramontism is the official doctrine of the Church.  I've never read, heard, or been told by a bishop or priest that it is, except by laypeople claiming that is Magisterial teaching.

[Michael Wilson]

If you want the true teaching of the Church on the Papacy all you have to do is consult a standard pre-Vatican II manual of Dogmatic Theology, such as:
Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"
Adolphe Tanqueray: "A Manual of Dogmatic Theology"
Joachim Salaverri S.J. "Sacrae Theologicae Summa" Vol IB "On the Church of Christ"
J.Whilhel & T. Scannell "A manual of Catholic Theology", Based on Scheeben's "Dogmatic"
E. Sylvester Berry S.T.D. "The Church of Christ"
S.J. Hunter, S.J. "Outlines of Dogmatic Theology"
Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D. "Dogmatic Theology"
Mons. J.C. Fenton. S.T.D. "The Church of Christ"
Finally: "Papal Teachings, 'The Church" selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solemes"

[Rad Trad]

There are no dogmas teaching ultramontism per pre V2 manuals.  It's an opinion of ultramontane theologians expressed in some manuals. Not the same thing as the Magisterium.

[Michael Wilson]

Rad Trad,
the teachings which people label "ultra-montanism" are the very teachings of the Popes; the Manualist repeat and explain these very teachings and arrange them in a logical coherent whole.

Give me some quotes from Popes or any official source that states that there can be heresy or moral errors in Papal documents.
I will quote from Pius XII "Humani Generis"

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

[Rad Trad]

Michael Wilson, given the recent threads in the SVist subforum, I think it's prudent you and I not go into a discussion about this subject. 

But, as asked in the OP, if you or anyone can provide  actual quotes from Magisterial documents that teach the pope  is infallible in all his documents promulgated to the universal Church, to show that ultramontism is the official doctrine of the Church, that would be much appreciated.

[Michael Wilson]

Rad Trad,
even though you are banned, you will be able to read this.
The first question a Catholic should ask themselves about any topic touching at all with faith and morals is "What does the Catholic Church teach about this?"
 
Your approach appears to be: "I don't think that the Catholic Church teaches such and such about this, prove to me otherwise"

According to ultramontist ecclesiology the pope is infallible in all his documents, doctrinal, pastoral, and disciplinary when promulgated to the universal Church.  I maintain this is not the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, but I am open to being more educated or corrected on this subject.

So the first thing would be to consult an official Catholic source, such as Papal teachings; Manuals of Dogmatic Theology, Catholic Catechisms, etc. etc. See what they have to say. Even internet sources if they provide source documentation can also be used.
Why would you consult a bunch of lay Catholics about Church doctrine, when there are official sources available?