FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Against Popolatry
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
According to Pope Boniface VIII, when he says "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici," this means to be in communion with Rome (as Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to be), and to be under his authority (as Archbishop Lefebvre also claimed to be). Now the authority of the Papacy is ordained by God to promote the unity and the common good of the Church, and is therefore subject both to the Church's Tradition and to the Faith. As Vatican I taught, "the Holy Spirit 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, 6).

Accordingly, a Pope who departs from the Faith in his non-infallible capacity, or who promotes some scandal, or who commands something sinful, is not to be obeyed, since what he has done is not using of the authority given to him by God, but abusing it. Some say that when Pope Alexander VI "threatened his concubine with excommunication unless she returned ad vomitum" (Iota Unum, p. 26), she should have obeyed, otherwise she wouldn't be subject to the Pope, and would have gone to Hell. Obviously, this is false, since the Pope's authority is subject to the morals and faith of the Church.

Accordingly, Pope Pius IX taught: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him" (Letter to Bishop Brizen). The great Jesuit Francisco Suarez taught: ""If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense." The Decree of Gratian: "Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith." Pope Adrian VI: "I consider that, if one equates the Church of Rome with her Head, that is with the Pope, it is correct to say that she can err, even in matters touching the Faith, by giving encouragement to heresy, in issuing certain decrees, for example. Several Roman Pontiffs have in fact been guilty of heresy."

St. Columba to Pope Boniface IV: "it is sorrow rather than conceit that obliges me to express to you in such a humble suggestion as befits me, that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles on account of you, contending, as you are, on both sides. For I am pained, I confess, at the infamy brought upon the Chair of St. Peter... For it is a painful and lamentable thing if the Catholic Faith is not preserved in the Apostolic See. And that I may see it all (not to seem to flatter even yourself unduly) it is also a painful thing to reflect upon, that you... were not the first to come forward influenced by zeal for the faith... Let me urge you, my fathers and my own patrons, to dispel the confusion from the face of your sons and disciples who are confounded on your account; and what is still greater, that the cloud of suspicion may be removed from the chair of St. Peter... Now is the fault yours if you have gone astray from the true confidence and make void your first faith: your juniors deservedly resist you and deservedly refuse to communicate with you; until the memory of the wicked be effaced and consigned to oblivion." (A Primer of the History of the Holy Catholic Church in Ireland, by Robert King, 304...).

What do you think?
What do you think of this?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
I've never heard the term "Popolatry" until recent times. If the term is used by Protestants, I can understand why and where it comes from. But if it is used by Catholics, I have to raise an eyebrow.

No good Catholic who obeys the Pope, giving him the benefit of the doubt when confused, figuring the Pope knows more about matters of faith than he does, should be termed a "pope worshiper." In the past all Catholics followed the Pope. I am sure there were good Catholics in the long past who followed an anti-Pope believing he was the real thing. Ordinary people were not privy to church documents. They did not have mass media to critique the Pope's every move and word on camera, watching for hints of heresy.

The quotes you posted were from popes and saints. In the past, laymen did not have the platform to advocate disobedience against the Pope, and if they did I bet they made sure they had their parish priest and local bishop on their side.

My opinion is that there are conservative Catholics today who don't want to obey the Pope because they don't agree with his approach on ecumenism, or they don't like the Mass he celebrates. Liberal Catholics don't follow him because they don't like his teaching on birth control or clerical celibacy. None of the Popes of the last 50 years have taught heresy - so I don't understand why this is an issue, unless one is actually a sedevacantist.
Just because one hasn't officially proclaimed something heretical ex cathedra does not mean that they haven't taught or said things which could be cause for scandal or appear to be blatantly contradictory with Church teaching.  The Seat of Peter is an office.  The Office is to be respected above the man. 
(02-10-2011, 05:55 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Just because one hasn't officially proclaimed something heretical ex cathedra does not mean that they haven't taught or said things which could be cause for scandal or appear to be blatantly contradictory with Church teaching.  The Seat of Peter is an office.  The Office is to be respected above the man. 

While this is true, I don't think scandal is a reason to disobey the Pope. As far as I know the Borgia Popes did not teach heresy and are still considered valid Popes. 
(02-10-2011, 06:04 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 05:55 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Just because one hasn't officially proclaimed something heretical ex cathedra does not mean that they haven't taught or said things which could be cause for scandal or appear to be blatantly contradictory with Church teaching.  The Seat of Peter is an office.  The Office is to be respected above the man. 

While this is true, I don't think scandal is a reason to disobey the Pope. As far as I know the Borgia Popes did not teach heresy and are still considered valid Popes. 

Valid, yes.  True examples of Catholic holy men who are to be emulated, not so much.
(02-10-2011, 06:09 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 06:04 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 05:55 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Just because one hasn't officially proclaimed something heretical ex cathedra does not mean that they haven't taught or said things which could be cause for scandal or appear to be blatantly contradictory with Church teaching.  The Seat of Peter is an office.  The Office is to be respected above the man. 

While this is true, I don't think scandal is a reason to disobey the Pope. As far as I know the Borgia Popes did not teach heresy and are still considered valid Popes. 

Valid, yes.  True examples of Catholic holy men who are to be emulated, not so much.

My understanding here is that the issue is obedience...not emulation.
(02-10-2011, 06:25 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 06:09 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 06:04 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2011, 05:55 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Just because one hasn't officially proclaimed something heretical ex cathedra does not mean that they haven't taught or said things which could be cause for scandal or appear to be blatantly contradictory with Church teaching.  The Seat of Peter is an office.  The Office is to be respected above the man. 

While this is true, I don't think scandal is a reason to disobey the Pope. As far as I know the Borgia Popes did not teach heresy and are still considered valid Popes. 

Valid, yes.  True examples of Catholic holy men who are to be emulated, not so much.

My understanding here is that the issue is obedience...not emulation.

Obedience in all things but sin.

The point of the OP is that popes can teach things contrary to faith or demand obedience in unlawful things.
Look here:

Quote: Accordingly, a Pope who departs from the Faith in his non-infallible capacity, or who promotes some scandal, or who commands something sinful, is not to be obeyed, since what he has done is not using of the authority given to him by God, but abusing it. According to you, when Pope Alexander VI "threatened his concubine with excommunication unless she returned ad vomitum" (Iota Unum, p. 26), she should have obeyed, otherwise she wouldn't be subject to the Pope, and would have gone to Hell. Obviously, this is false, since the Pope's authority is subject to the morals and faith of the Church.

Of course if a Pope commands you directly to sin, as the above case demonstrates (if it's true), then you should obey God over men. I think even most "pope worshipers" would agree.
(02-10-2011, 06:30 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Look here:

Quote: Accordingly, a Pope who departs from the Faith in his non-infallible capacity, or who promotes some scandal, or who commands something sinful, is not to be obeyed, since what he has done is not using of the authority given to him by God, but abusing it. According to you, when Pope Alexander VI "threatened his concubine with excommunication unless she returned ad vomitum" (Iota Unum, p. 26), she should have obeyed, otherwise she wouldn't be subject to the Pope, and would have gone to Hell. Obviously, this is false, since the Pope's authority is subject to the morals and faith of the Church.

Of course if a Pope commands you directly to sin, as the above case demonstrates (if it's true), then you should obey God over men. I think even most "pope worshipers" would agree.

Certainly, "we ought to obey God, rather than men." (Acts 5:29). That sound principle comes from the Bible itself.

However, it gets trickier when the Pope happens to demand obedience in something that is prone to heresy but not explicitly heretical. The situation described above (Alexander VI and his concubine) is clear when it comes to judging its morality. However, nowadays in the post-conciliar milieu, many situations are ambiguous and far from clear, whilst others are prima facie scandalous (e.g. Assisi, etc.) but witty excuses are drawn up afterwards, so that the majority of the faithful keeps going along with it under the safe guise of obedience.

The fruits of this confusion are, nevertheless, quite clear.
Pages: 1 2