Does the Pope possess Power to Depose Rulers and Absolve Subjects of Allegiance?
#61
I believe the Papacy poses a physical coercive force, but, I also see in my Lord the same thing, and how did my Lord use his physical coercive force?  1 time, recorded, the money changers in the temple, in the end He let himself be nailed to the cross, and told Peter to sheathe that sword.
Reply
#62
(10-05-2011, 02:28 PM)Walty Wrote: You can't make such a distinction. The authority of God comes through His Church, and only through His Church.

Of course there's a distinction. There's a real difference between political and religious power.

The Church has a God-given authority over the faithful in terms of religious obedience and binding of consciences. That is the true sphere of the Church's (and hence the Pope's) authority: it's religious in nature, not political. If a bishop or a pope happens to have any temporal power, it's only by an accident of history, not by divine mandate.

The temporal power that rulers enjoy is different in scope and it is not given them by or through the Church but by God.

Matthew 22:21 Wrote:"Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's: and to God, the things that are God's."
Hayddocks commentary Wrote:Ver. 21. Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's. He neither directly decided the question, nor offended the Herodians. They admired his wisdom, were quite disappointed, and retired with confusion. (Witham) --- The reasoning of Christ appears to be this: As you are the subjects of Cæsar, which you plainly acknowledge by admitting his coin, upon which he inscribes himself lord of Asia, Syria, and Judæa, &c. it is but just you pay him the tribute due from subjects to their sovereign; nor have you any reason to object on the plea of religion, since he demands of you for the exigencies of the public service only temporal things, and such as are in some respects already his own, by being stamped with his own image and superscription. But spiritual things, which belong to God alone, as your souls, stamped with his image, divine worship, religious homage, &c. God, not Cæsar, demands of you. "Give therefore to Cæsar what belongeth to Cæsar, and to God what belongeth to God." (Tirinus) --- What our Saviour here commands us to give to God, is nothing else but our heart and affections. Here our divine Lord likewise shews us, how we are to steer the middle course between the two extremes, into which some persons fall. Some say that all must be given to God, and nothing to Cæsar, i.e. all our time must be given to the care of our soul, and none to the care of the body; but Christ teaches that some must be given to the one, and part to the other. (Origen) --- Although Christ clearly establishes here the strict obligation of paying to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, yet he is afterwards accused, as we have mentioned above, (see note on ver. 17) as if he forbade tribute to be paid to Cæsar. In like manner, in spite of the most explicit declarations of the Catholic Church, respecting her loyalty and subjection to temporal powers, her enemies fail not to calumniate her doctrine as inimical to the state, and subversive of due subordination. But let our opponents attend to the following authority and public declaration of Pope Clement XIV. addressed to all Catholic bishops in the Christian world. "Be careful," says he, "that those whose instruction in the law of the gospel is committed to your charge, be made sensible from their very infancy of their sacred obligation of loyalty to their kings, of respect to their authority, and of submission to their laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake." --- But princes should not exact, and subjects should not affect to give them ecclesiastical jurisdiction. St. Athanasius quotes the following strong words from an epistle of the famous confessor Hosius, to Constantius, the Arian emperor: "Cease, I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal. Fear the day of judgment, and meddle not with ecclesiastical matters; neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us. To thee God hath committed the empire; to us he hath committed what belongs to the Church. And as he who, with a malicious eye, hath designs upon thine empire, opposeth the ordinance of God; so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written, Give to Cæsar, &c. Therefore, neither is it lawful for us on earth to hold the empire, neither hast thou, O emperor, power over incense and sacred things." (St. Athansius, ep. ad solit. vitam agentes.) --- And St. Ambrose to Valentinian, the emperor, (who by the ill counsel of his mother Justina, an Arian, required of St. Ambrose to have one church in Milan made over to the Arian heretics) saith: "We pay that which is Cæsar's to Cæsar, and that which is God's to God. Tribute is Cæsar's; it is not denied. The Church is God's; it cannot verily be yielded to Cæsar; because the temple of God cannot be Cæsar's right. Be it said, as all must allow to the honour of the emperor, for what is more honourable than that the emperor be said to be the son of the Church? A good emperor is within the Church, but not above the Church." (St. Ambrose, lib. v. epist. Orat. de Basil, trad.)

1 Peter 2:13-16 Wrote:"Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling: Or to governors, as sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the good: For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God."
Haydocks commentary Wrote:Ver. 13. To every human creature,[5] to every one whom the order of Providence has placed over you, whether it be to emperors or kings, who have the supreme power in kingdoms, or to governors of provinces; obey your temporal princes, though heathens and idolaters, (as the Roman emperors were at that time enemies to the Christian religion) in all that is not sinful and against the law of God: for this is the will of God, and all power is from God. See Romans xiii. In like manner (ver. 18.) servants must be subject and obey their masters, though they be infidels. See 1 Corinthians vii. By this you will silence the ignorance and calumnies of foolish men, who pretended that the Christian religion taught them to be disobedient to princes, and to be subjects of Christ only, their supreme spiritual king. (Witham)

Ver. 16. As free; to wit, from the slavery of sin, but take care not to make this Christian freedom and liberty a cloak for malice, as they do, who pretend that this makes subjects free from their obedience to temporal princes and magistrates; or servants free from the obedience due to their masters, even when they are froward,[6] ill-humoured, or cross to them. (Witham) --- There were some heretics in the days of St. Peter, as there are at present, who under pretext of evangelical liberty seek to be free from all even lawful subjection, and thus set themselves above the ordinances of both civil and ecclesiastical power.
Reply
#63
(10-05-2011, 03:17 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 02:28 PM)Walty Wrote: You can't make such a distinction. The authority of God comes through His Church, and only through His Church.

Seems our first Pope disagreed with you:

First Epistle of St Peter Wrote:2:13. Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling,

2:14. Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good.

Nothing about, 'Sent by me' or 'sent through the Church'.

What?  This is merely speaking about how governors are sent by kings.
Reply
#64
(10-05-2011, 03:18 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 02:28 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 12:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 12:19 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 09:53 AM)cgraye Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 07:28 AM)Walty Wrote: The Holy Father should have influence over secular authority.  That's my ultramontanist stance.

Influence in what way?

The Holy Father should allow nation states self-governance and independent standing armies, but these secular governments should ultimately answer to him. If, for some extreme reason, he wishes to condemn or request a particular action from that government then they should be obliged under penalty of excommunication and possibly physical force to obey.

But this presupposes that nation states and their governments derive their authority from the Pope and not directly from God.

That isn't the case.

You can't make such a distinction. The authority of God comes through His Church, and only through His Church.

But is the Pope the mediator of all authority?

Can a pope tell a child not to obey his natural father and mother?

A pope can sack a bishop, but can a pope change the fact that priests owe obedience to their bishops?

Can a pope tell a wife not to obey her husband?

Of course not, because what you are saying is unnatural.  True obedience only lies to earthly authority when it properly reflects heavenly authority.  That doesn't change what I'm saying.
Reply
#65
(10-05-2011, 03:43 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That is the true sphere of the Church's (and hence the Pope's) authority: it's religious in nature, not political. If a bishop or a pope happens to have any temporal power, it's only by an accident of history, not by divine mandate.

I'm not saying that the pope should have direct secular authority.  What I am saying, however, is that theology and philosophy are inextricable from politics and thus the pope should have the authority to demand under penalty of excommunication and/or physical force the compliance of a Catholic government.

For example, let's pretend that France is a Catholic monarchy.  France decides to make abortion legal and abortion begins to be practiced by French doctors.  The pope should have the authority to demand that abortion remain illegal under strict penalty.  If the French king does not comply, then he defies his rightful authority and is to be excommunicated.  If the Holy Father deems it necessary, he should also have the power to call upon other nations to enforce militarily that France comply with his directive.
Reply
#66
(10-05-2011, 03:56 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 03:43 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That is the true sphere of the Church's (and hence the Pope's) authority: it's religious in nature, not political. If a bishop or a pope happens to have any temporal power, it's only by an accident of history, not by divine mandate.

I'm not saying that the pope should have direct secular authority.  What I am saying, however, is that theology and philosophy are inextricable from politics and thus the pope should have the authority to demand under penalty of excommunication and/or physical force the compliance of a Catholic government.

For example, let's pretend that France is a Catholic monarchy.  France decides to make abortion legal and abortion begins to be practiced by French doctors.  The pope should have the authority to demand that abortion remain illegal under strict penalty.  If the French king does not comply, then he defies his rightful authority and is to be excommunicated.  If the Holy Father deems it necessary, he should also have the power to call upon other nations to enforce militarily that France comply with his directive.

In such an example, the French king would be rightfully excommunicated from the Church, as a son of the Church, but would not be stripped off from his kingly dignity as a ruler, a dignity that wasn't given him by the Church but by God himself.

That is the difference. The Pope has the spiritual power to rule the faithful of Christ, to instruct them, to reprove them, to bind their consciences, etc., but he has not the temporal power to depose kings or presidents as such.
Reply
#67
(10-05-2011, 04:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 03:56 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 03:43 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That is the true sphere of the Church's (and hence the Pope's) authority: it's religious in nature, not political. If a bishop or a pope happens to have any temporal power, it's only by an accident of history, not by divine mandate.

I'm not saying that the pope should have direct secular authority.  What I am saying, however, is that theology and philosophy are inextricable from politics and thus the pope should have the authority to demand under penalty of excommunication and/or physical force the compliance of a Catholic government.

For example, let's pretend that France is a Catholic monarchy.  France decides to make abortion legal and abortion begins to be practiced by French doctors.  The pope should have the authority to demand that abortion remain illegal under strict penalty.  If the French king does not comply, then he defies his rightful authority and is to be excommunicated.  If the Holy Father deems it necessary, he should also have the power to call upon other nations to enforce militarily that France comply with his directive.

In such an example, the French king would be rightfully excommunicated from the Church, as a son of the Church, but would not be stripped off from his kingly dignity as a ruler, a dignity that wasn't given him by the Church but by God himself.

That is the difference. The Pope has the spiritual power to rule the faithful of Christ, to instruct them, to reprove them, to bind their consciences, etc., but he has not the temporal power to depose kings or presidents as such.

Just because one man is a king does not mean that he cannot be overthrown by other men in the name of Catholicism.
Reply
#68
(10-05-2011, 04:03 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 04:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 03:56 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 03:43 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: That is the true sphere of the Church's (and hence the Pope's) authority: it's religious in nature, not political. If a bishop or a pope happens to have any temporal power, it's only by an accident of history, not by divine mandate.

I'm not saying that the pope should have direct secular authority.  What I am saying, however, is that theology and philosophy are inextricable from politics and thus the pope should have the authority to demand under penalty of excommunication and/or physical force the compliance of a Catholic government.

For example, let's pretend that France is a Catholic monarchy.  France decides to make abortion legal and abortion begins to be practiced by French doctors.  The pope should have the authority to demand that abortion remain illegal under strict penalty.  If the French king does not comply, then he defies his rightful authority and is to be excommunicated.  If the Holy Father deems it necessary, he should also have the power to call upon other nations to enforce militarily that France comply with his directive.

In such an example, the French king would be rightfully excommunicated from the Church, as a son of the Church, but would not be stripped off from his kingly dignity as a ruler, a dignity that wasn't given him by the Church but by God himself.

That is the difference. The Pope has the spiritual power to rule the faithful of Christ, to instruct them, to reprove them, to bind their consciences, etc., but he has not the temporal power to depose kings or presidents as such.

Just because one man is a king does not mean that he cannot be overthrown by other men in the name of Catholicism.

He can but such rebellion would have to be lawful in the eyes of God. Rebellion against legitimate authority is a sensible topic, as you know, since obedience to it is a sacred duty of every Christian.

Either way, my point stands: the Pope or the local bishops may incite the consciences of the populace or of other Christian rulers to overthrow a given government deemed to be tyrannical but the Church herself does not have the temporal power to legally depose the political power.
Reply
#69
Quite so. We've seen and heard about priests that in the name of "Catholicism" carry rifles and are out to overthrow governments in South America. But they're Catholic.
so it's all good
Reply
#70
(10-05-2011, 04:09 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Either way, my point stands: the Pope or the local bishops may incite the consciences of the populace or of other Christian rulers to overthrow a given government deemed to be tyrannical but the Church herself does not have the temporal power to legally depose the political power.

He may incite the consciences of the populace to overthrow the rebellious king or he may incite the consciences of other nations to overthrow the rebellious king.  It's the same concept.  You can't claim the right for one and not the other.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)