Does the Pope possess Power to Depose Rulers and Absolve Subjects of Allegiance?
#21
(10-02-2011, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 04:25 AM)Sabbathiel Wrote: According to the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII, yes he does. Fully and totally and unquestionably.

I was under the impression that the Dictatus Papae was spurious.

Whether spurious or not, and you're right that that is an open question, the Dictatus is in no way any sort of binding, doctrinal statement. It was simply an insertion in Cardinal Deusdedit's collection of Decretals, a private collection of documents on Canon Law. As such, even if it is authentic, it was not doctrine to begin with and has long been abrogated by long disusage and specific legislation.
Reply
#22
I don't think that the pope generally has authority to dispose a secular leader, but he certainly has the authority to declare when a secular leader has lost any legitimate authority due to manifest tyranny.

The exception would be when a nation's constitution specifies that the leader in question be in good standing with the Church and the pope excommunicates him. In such a case, the pope really would be dispensing him from office, but only as a side effect of the excommunication.
Reply
#23
(10-02-2011, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 04:25 AM)Sabbathiel Wrote: According to the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII, yes he does. Fully and totally and unquestionably.

I was under the impression that the Dictatus Papae was spurious.

If you are so inclined, enlighten on empirical-evidentiary substantiation in relation to this question here. I honestly didn't know that...

If they are indeed spurious, does it change things that deeply...? I don't know. Spurious or not, the document expresses the developing and developed genuinely-historically-existent ideology of Total Papal Supremacy existing at the time, surpassing by a teeny-weeny bit the older, suppositionally (according to the mainstream) more "symphonic/symphonal" Gelasian "two-sword" metapolitical theory...

(I am not introducing my own personal view for the sake of the discussion.)

Even St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his "On Consideration" (4, 3) states thusly:

Both swords therefore belong to the Church, the spiritual and the material. The material sword is to be drawn in defense of the Church, the spiritual by the Church; the spiritual by the hand of the priest, the material by the knighthood or soldiery, but at a sign from the priest, and on the order of the emperor.
Reply
#24
(10-02-2011, 02:38 PM)Sabbathiel Wrote: If they are indeed spurious, does it change things that deeply...?

See my reply in #20, above.
Reply
#25
(10-02-2011, 02:38 PM)Sabbathiel Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 04:25 AM)Sabbathiel Wrote: According to the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII, yes he does. Fully and totally and unquestionably.

I was under the impression that the Dictatus Papae was spurious.

If you are so inclined, enlighten on empirical-evidentiary substantiation in relation to this question here. I honestly didn't know that...

If they are indeed spurious, does it change things that deeply...? I don't know. Spurious or not, the document expresses the developing and developed genuinely-historically-existent ideology of Total Papal Supremacy existing at the time, surpassing by a teeny-weeny bit the older, suppositionally (according to the mainstream) more "symphonic/symphonal" Gelasian "two-sword" metapolitical theory...

(I am not introducing my own personal view for the sake of the discussion.)

Even St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his "On Consideration" (4, 3) states thusly:

Both swords therefore belong to the Church, the spiritual and the material. The material sword is to be drawn in defense of the Church, the spiritual by the Church; the spiritual by the hand of the priest, the material by the knighthood or soldiery, but at a sign from the priest, and on the order of the emperor.

The two swords idea was officially taught by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam.
Reply
#26
(10-02-2011, 02:55 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 02:38 PM)Sabbathiel Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 02:18 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 04:25 AM)Sabbathiel Wrote: According to the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII, yes he does. Fully and totally and unquestionably.

I was under the impression that the Dictatus Papae was spurious.

If you are so inclined, enlighten on empirical-evidentiary substantiation in relation to this question here. I honestly didn't know that...

If they are indeed spurious, does it change things that deeply...? I don't know. Spurious or not, the document expresses the developing and developed genuinely-historically-existent ideology of Total Papal Supremacy existing at the time, surpassing by a teeny-weeny bit the older, suppositionally (according to the mainstream) more "symphonic/symphonal" Gelasian "two-sword" metapolitical theory...

(I am not introducing my own personal view for the sake of the discussion.)

Even St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his "On Consideration" (4, 3) states thusly:

Both swords therefore belong to the Church, the spiritual and the material. The material sword is to be drawn in defense of the Church, the spiritual by the Church; the spiritual by the hand of the priest, the material by the knighthood or soldiery, but at a sign from the priest, and on the order of the emperor.

The two swords idea was officially taught by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam.

I think we might be having a muddling in semantics here... I hate semantics myself, technical definition obsession, etc...

(And while I'm not trumpeting my personal belief right now, I can imagine it is capable of being inferred from my self-identity as an "anti-modernist Catholic 'revolutionary-reactionary'"...)

Anyhow, here is the Thomistic teaching on the subject. Naturally the modern Church has "progressively" "evolved" neo-Hegelian-pantheist, evolutionist-style away from such "undemocratic, inhuman horror" (or whatever words of shocked hypocrisy uttered) from the...Angelic Doctor:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3012.htm

Article 2. Whether a prince forfeits his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, so that they no longer owe him allegiance?

Objection 1. It would seem that a prince does not so forfeit his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, that they no longer owe him allegiance. For Ambrose [St. Augustine, Super Psalm 124:3 says that the Emperor Julian, though an apostate, nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers, who when he said to them, "Fall into line for the defense of the republic," were bound to obey. Therefore subjects are not absolved from their allegiance to their prince on account of his apostasy.

Objection 2. Further, an apostate from the faith is an unbeliever. Now we find that certain holy men served unbelieving masters; thus Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel served Nabuchodonosor, and Mardochai served Assuerus. Therefore apostasy from the faith does not release subjects from allegiance to their sovereign.

Objection 3. Further, just as by apostasy from the faith, a man turns away from God, so does every sin. Consequently if, on account of apostasy from the faith, princes were to lose their right to command those of their subjects who are believers, they would equally lose it on account of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account of his apostatizing from the faith.

On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Council, Roman V): "Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until these shall have made amends." Now apostates from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the Decretal [Extra, De Haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam]. Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from the faith.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 10, Article 10), unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law: whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on account of other sins.

Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?" She can, however, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (1, Objection 2), "a man that is an apostate . . . with a wicked heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord," in order to sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the faith, his subjects are "ipso facto" absolved from his authority and from the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him.

Reply to Objection 1. At that time the Church was but recently instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing earthly princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey Julian the Apostate, in matters that were not contrary to the faith, in order to avoid incurring a yet greater danger.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated in the article, it is not a question of those unbelievers who have never received the faith.

Reply to Objection 3. Apostasy from the faith severs man from God altogether, as stated above (Article 1), which is not the case in any other sin.
Reply
#27
Basically, the consensus I'm getting is a carefully qualified Yes--but generally only if such Temporal Authority was initially somehow affianced to the Supreme Pontiff in the first place is direct right-to-depose morally legitimate... "The master is in control of his own flock", in other words...

Yet, -- there is civil insurgency and Tyrannicide, too, to wade through ethico-theologically... "Fun times"... :)
Reply
#28
The proposition that the Popes do not have a right to rule secularly has been condemned by the Holy Office, it is in DZ.

Also, the Popes have supreme, full, plenary, and universal jurisdiction to do the following "Rule, Teach, and to Govern," or, in latin, Ministerium, Magisterium, and Regimen.  The power of Regimen, the governing power, includes what is called "coersive power," and the coersive power is subdivided into "spiritual coercive power," and "physical coersive power."  The physical coercive power I believe gives the Pope the right to depose any ruler he wishes, and, you know what, who is to say?  Ultimately, the Pope is.  Get it?  All the Pope would have to do, in the case of a non-excesise of purely physical coercive power, is to pass a spiritual law on the queen or whomever, that would say for your own good, you must do this, and that person would be bound under obedience to obey.  If the Pope has the power to enact spiritual and physical coercive laws, then those under the Pope, which is to say, everyone, have the duty to obey them.  That would, make sense, wouldn't it.

If the Pope says he has the right to remove allegience from a queen, then, I am going to trust and stand with the Pope, as opposed to the queen or anyone else.
Reply
#29
(10-02-2011, 05:23 PM)jordanawef Wrote: The proposition that the Popes do not have a right to rule secularly has been condemned by the Holy Office, it is in DZ.

Also, the Popes have supreme, full, plenary, and universal jurisdiction to do the following "Rule, Teach, and to Govern," or, in latin, Ministerium, Magisterium, and Regimen.  The power of Regimen, the governing power, includes what is called "coersive power," and the coersive power is subdivided into "spiritual coercive power," and "physical coersive power."  The physical coercive power I believe gives the Pope the right to depose any ruler he wishes, and, you know what, who is to say?  Ultimately, the Pope is.  Get it?  All the Pope would have to do, in the case of a non-excesise of purely physical coercive power, is to pass a spiritual law on the queen or whomever, that would say for your own good, you must do this, and that person would be bound under obedience to obey.  If the Pope has the power to enact spiritual and physical coercive laws, then those under the Pope, which is to say, everyone, have the duty to obey them.  That would, make sense, wouldn't it.

If the Pope says he has the right to remove allegience from a queen, then, I am going to trust and stand with the Pope, as opposed to the queen or anyone else.

Hey there, I'm on your side--couldn't tell if you knew by the tone in some of your words...

Well, I'll unveil what I believe, heck with it:

I am probably the extremest Papalo-monarchist or Papalo-Caesarist on the planet.

I believe Popes should be militant sentinels and guardians of their sheep...

I believe the Supreme Pontiff possesses global imperial imperium...

I believe the Pope has the intrinsic right to convoke and lead crusades and hurl armies against foreign foes; not stopping there, I also believe the Pope should attempt to uproot and extirpate all forms of paganism in the West utterly...

I believe the Pope has the inherent right to initiate Crusade internally within Christendom (and even beyond!), on the home-front, with as much militant fervor as coordinating a defense against alien depredation...

And not only that, I believe (an ideal) Pope should solemnly reconstitute or recreate new Military Orders of holy Soldier-Monks of irreproachable personal nobility of character, for both internal and external protection of Christians... Such a caste would not be "hereditary-aristocratic" in the plutocratic modern sense, but "aristocratic" in the "meritocratic" and "aretological" sense, welcoming "fresh blood" from the commons on sufficient proof of courage, fidelity and contempt for mere life absent of honor... As such, these ecclesiastical warriors of Bernardine neo-Templarism would only be juridically answerable to the Papal Office...no petty kinglings, nationalistic despots, elected subordinates, tribalistic presidents, any planetary inferiors whatsoever...

The Pope is (ideally) the highest imago Dei on earth, and a "living law on earth" unbound to external laws because a law unto himself in his metaphysically exceptional nature and role, with only above himself the Lex Aeternae or Lex Primordialis, as figurations of the Godhead as Ultimate Lawgiver...

I don't think you can get more extreme than me, for better or worse. :P :)

--And ultimately WHY do I take such an absolutely hardcore and extremist stance?

Only because I want Innocence and Good protected maximally as imaginable in this fallen aion, and conscienceless, predatory, blood-thirsty Evil not even given the chance to defile... I'm not a "lucid madman"--just ahead of the curve... :P :)
Reply
#30
(10-02-2011, 05:23 PM)jordanawef Wrote: If the Pope says he has the right to remove allegience from a queen, then, I am going to trust and stand with the Pope, as opposed to the queen or anyone else.

Wow! Good for you! I'm so glad you're so much better a Catholic than the Sainted English Martyrs like St Edmund Campion, who went to their deaths protesting their loyalty to their Queen despite the Papal Bull.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)