Does the Pope possess Power to Depose Rulers and Absolve Subjects of Allegiance?
#91
(10-05-2011, 10:56 PM)Walty Wrote: Yes, the argument being espoused by so many here is Gallicanism, straight up. 

Wow! This is a wake up call! For 30+ years I've been calling myself an ultramontane and now I find out I'm a Gallican because I believe in Scripture and the teachings of Saints like Hugh of St Victor and Robert Bellarmine.  You just never know! :laughing:

And, Walty, the 24th paragraph of the Syllabus refers to the Papal States and I have absolutely no problem with assenting to it. Only one or two people here are arguing thar the Church cannot possess temporal power and I disagree with them. What is being argued is whether that temporal power extends beyond direct Papal temporal rule.
Reply
#92
(10-06-2011, 12:02 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 11:53 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 11:32 PM)Walty Wrote: Since when does Christ's authority not rule over earth?  Just because He didn't set up an earthly authority in His lifetime does not mean that He didn't intend to have one arise afterward. 

He said that his kingdom was not of this world.  That may not be a direct renunciation of the possibility of a worldly kingdom afterwards, but as always, an argument from silence isn't an argument.  You're basically saying that Christ would establish a kingdom of this world afterward, and your proof is that Christ never said he wouldn't.  Very faulty logic there.

No, my proof is the Catholic faith.

The pope having temporal power is NOT part of the Catholic faith.
Reply
#93
(10-06-2011, 01:47 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 10:56 PM)Walty Wrote: Yes, the argument being espoused by so many here is Gallicanism, straight up. 

What is being argued is whether that temporal power extends beyond direct Papal temporal rule.

Right, which if you will just look up to my last quote from an infallible document, you will see the error which called Gallican, so, that would settle the question, long time ago.  Case closed.
Reply
#94
I disagreed with Walty before, but I think we agree now that I've read more of this discussion.

The pope can certainly demand, even through temporal force (rebellion, war, economic sanctions) and not just spiritual (excommunication, interdict, etc) the deposition of a king.

BUT the pope saying, "well now he's not the King of France," doesn't make it so.  It would be even less relevant for the Pope to have an opinion on the authority of a pagan "democratic" leader of theocratic non-Christian leader, like the prime minster of India or the Dalai Lama or the sultan of Brunei.
Reply
#95
Question: can a patriarch or diocesan bishop exercise this kind of authority as well?

Can a bishop bind those in his diocese not to vote for a certain evil candidate?  Or of even rebelling against the government, if it came to that? Of course in the US for reasons of keeping tax-exempt status, bishops don't do this ... but could they, ecclesiologically speaking?  Why not? 
Reply
#96
(10-06-2011, 03:11 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I disagreed with Walty before, but I think we agree now that I've read more of this discussion.

The pope can certainly demand, even through temporal force (rebellion, war, economic sanctions) and not just spiritual (excommunication, interdict, etc) the deposition of a king.

BUT the pope saying, "well now he's not the King of France," doesn't make it so.  It would be even less relevant for the Pope to have an opinion on the authority of a pagan "democratic" leader of theocratic non-Christian leader, like the prime minster of India or the Dalai Lama or the sultan of Brunei.

What you have essentially done is nominally assent, but not essentially assent.  You are now limiting the Popes power of deposing to a power in which he could not depose, or as you say "Not say This is No longer he King of France.". That is exactly what the Pope can do, because that is exactly what it means to depose a king or queen.

Believe, or fall into Gallicanism. I hope believe.
Reply
#97
(10-06-2011, 03:12 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Question: can a patriarch or diocesan bishop exercise this kind of authority as well?

Can a bishop bind those in his diocese not to vote for a certain evil candidate?  Or of even rebelling against the government, if it came to that? Of course in the US for reasons of keeping tax-exempt status, bishops don't do this ... but could they, ecclesiologically speaking?  Why not? 

If the entire political jurisdiction was in the See of the Ordinary, yes, because in any case, under the principles of delegation, the Pope could give this power to the Ordinary, even if he did not currently have that power, which I think he does.  In fact, under the principles of delegation, any baptized male could posses the delegated authority to depose a ruler, but, how practical could such a thing be, in any case it could happen, because such a power would flow from the capability to recieve ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is receivable by any baptized male, tonsure not even necessary, oh and he must also be capable of human acts, but with most people that is a given, but could be something to consider in such a situation due to the influence of fear.
Reply
#98
(10-06-2011, 03:24 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(10-06-2011, 03:11 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I disagreed with Walty before, but I think we agree now that I've read more of this discussion.

The pope can certainly demand, even through temporal force (rebellion, war, economic sanctions) and not just spiritual (excommunication, interdict, etc) the deposition of a king.

BUT the pope saying, "well now he's not the King of France," doesn't make it so.  It would be even less relevant for the Pope to have an opinion on the authority of a pagan "democratic" leader of theocratic non-Christian leader, like the prime minster of India or the Dalai Lama or the sultan of Brunei.

What you have essentially done is nominally assent, but not essentially assent.  You are now limiting the Popes power of deposing to a power in which he could not depose, or as you say "Not say This is No longer he King of France.". That is exactly what the Pope can do, because that is exactly what it means to depose a king or queen.

Believe, or fall into Gallicanism. I hope believe.

I think the question, brought up by Jovan, is ... does the Pope's authority apply everywhere or to the Papal States (his own temporal territory)? 

Can the pope really legitimately depose a President of the United States?
Reply
#99
Well, let it be said that he posseses the authority to do so, but whether or not he really can get it done is another question, and there is a range of considerations between that.  Also, I think this is kind of an imprudent thing to discuss on a public forum, do you see why?  It is a matter of prudence to not draw down unnecessary fights upon an already terrible situation, and, indeed, it does not seem to be any sort of 500 year near term practical action that would be taken.  We don't want to be fish eaters who spice with gunpowder, get it?  Indeed we are not, Christ went to death rather than have his friend pull out a sword for Him, and what a rebuke!
Reply
(10-06-2011, 03:11 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I disagreed with Walty before, but I think we agree now that I've read more of this discussion.

The pope can certainly demand, even through temporal force (rebellion, war, economic sanctions) and not just spiritual (excommunication, interdict, etc) the deposition of a king.

BUT the pope saying, "well now he's not the King of France," doesn't make it so.  It would be even less relevant for the Pope to have an opinion on the authority of a pagan "democratic" leader of theocratic non-Christian leader, like the prime minster of India or the Dalai Lama or the sultan of Brunei.

Yes, this is my argument.  I would also argue that the pope is justified, and at times obligated, to make judgments on temporal affairs when they pertain to faith and morals.

The problem with many of the arguments here, and the problem with Gallicanism, is that you can't simply divorce politics from theology/philosophy.  They are intimately linked in many circumstances, and thus the Pope's authority extends over into "secular" matters.

Think of the Crusades.  They were as much about politics as they were about safe-guarding the doctrine of the Church (in fact, I would argue that they were much more so).  It was a Holy War nonetheless, and Pope Urban was entirely justified in his calling for Europe to stand up and fight.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)