Certainly, it would be ridiculous and completely wrong to consider that the Pope “exclusively defines Tradition”– implying that the Pope himself is the source of Tradition. But Rod Dreher, with his remarkable capacity for going straight to the heart of the matter, has extracted the key question “camouflaged” behind Dougherty’s words:
“What are the limits of the Pope's power?”[i]
The answer contains only one, short word: God. Indeed. God himself is the limit of the pontifical power – as He is, at the same time, the limit of any other position or function of power, ecclesiastical or social-political. Because God himself, who is THE Source of every principle and absolute truth of both moral life and Christian Faith (besides all the content of the Divine and Apostolic Tradition), is the limit of any representative of every hierarchical office/function on earth. Why so? Because God is the sole and absolute Creator of any legitimate hierarchy under the sun.
We owe absolute obedience only and exclusively to God.
That is why we must emphasize an essential axiom: we owe absolute obedience only and exclusively to God. God not only revealed to us the Moral Law (through Moses) and supernatural Faith (through the Holy Bible, free of every error), but also the content of the Divine Tradition, which includes the Liturgy and the Sacraments. Consequently, He and He alone is, in an absolute sense, the Source of every legitimate power or authority. When it comes to the obedience that we owe to a person who, in a legitimate way, represents a certain level of authority – like biological parents, spiritual parents (priests, bishops or popes), or public authority representatives – , this is only a relative obedience. Relative not in a “relativistic” way, but in the sense in which a limited thing is relative to something else: for example, the legitimate authority of anyone holding an ecclesiastical office is relative to God, not to himself. Only God is truly autarchic, being the unique and absolute source of any good, as well as the unique and absolute principle of justice. In a word, He is the “measure” of all things. From all those examples in the sacred books of the Bible I will choose two examples that clearly expose the distinction between an absolute obedience and a relative obedience.
Pontius Pilate’s authority was relative to God. When Pilate, annoyed by Jesus of Nazareth’s silence, tells Him: “Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?” (John 19: 10), Jesus Christ answers him, briefly and clearly, by showing the very source of Pilate’s authority: “Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19: 11). What is truly remarkable and very pedagogic in this answer is that it is addressed to a pagan political leader. Thus, we can conclude that even in such a case, where there is no supernatural faith, the source of power is still God himself. Pilate as a Roman ruler has a power that is derived from and subordinate to the absolute power of God.
Another good example is the answer given by the Apostles to the members of the Sanhedrin when they ordered them to stop spreading the Christian gospel: “We ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5: 29). Clear enough, isn’t it?
But if every pope owes obedience to God – just like all of us – we owe him obedience only if what he teaches us respects God’s absolute authority. The Pope has no absolute authority; only God does.
Actually, the answer given by the apostles shows us that there is a strict hierarchy in the obedience we owe; and the absolute reference is only and exclusively God, not the Pope. All those who are God’s servants and worshipers – from the Faithful to the bishops and the Pope himself – owe Him absolute obedience. The source, the absolute reference even for hierarchs, is God himself. The answer given by the apostles to the members of the Sanhedrin reveals to us precisely this axiom based on the distinction between God’s absolute authority and the relative authority of any person who is holding a hierarchical position. But if every pope owes obedience to God – just like all of us – we owe him obedience only if what he teaches us respects God’s absolute authority. The Pope has no absolute authority; only God does.
That is why, when we read authoritative documents like Pastor Aeternus we must keep in mind this principle: the authority of the pope is relative to the supreme authority of God himself. But if a pope does not respect this crucial axiom, he can become the opposite of what he is meant to be: a wolf in sheep’s clothing instead of a true shepherd. This is half-heartedly stated even in the Catholic Culture website article quoted by Rod Dreher: “The Pope’s juridical Primacy does not convey any right upon the papacy to violate any man’s conscience or to coerce into sin.”After such a statement, the greatest debate instantly begins if someone dares to ask the forbidden question: “And what if the pope is a heretic? If there is no authority under the sun that is higher than the pope’s, what can be done in such a situation?” For post-medieval Catholics, the matter is so disturbing that some theologians and doctors from the past three centuries even tried to prove that such a thing can never happen.
This is not the case with the renowned Saint and Doctor of the Church, Francis of Sales. He is one of those who believe that a pope can be a heretic and that in such a situation “the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See” – but the concrete way of action is not clear at all.
Confronting the same difficult problem during the debate caused by the (in)famous apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the brilliant Dominican priest and scholar Aidan Nichols suggested in a conference held in 2017 some very interesting ideas. First, he stated that it is highly probable that “the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.” Second, he emphasized that the immediate danger is the spreading of heresies of a moral nature encouraged by a pontifical text. Then he opened that debate which, in the context created by Pope Francis’ pontificate, could be the most important: canon law must be reformed in order to provide “a procedure for calling to order a pope who teaches error”.
The limit of the Pope’s power is God. And if a shepherd – Pope, Bishop or Priest – favors or teaches a heresy, in such a situation he illicitly crosses the limits of the orthodox faith, limits established by God through His supernatural Revelation.
But until the Church hierarchs have such a debate and establish the procedure requested by Aidan Nichols O.P., we will repeat this fundamental truth: as in the case of any shepherd, the limit of the Pope’s power is God. And if a shepherd – Pope, Bishop or Priest – favors or teaches a heresy, in such a situation he illicitly crosses the limits of the orthodox faith, limits established by God through His supernatural Revelation. The same rule applies to the content of the Divine and Apostolic Tradition regarding the Holy Mass and the Sacraments. No “reform” should make us believe – as the heretical German bishops would like – that we can cross the limits established by God, Who is the only Source of Revelation, Law, and Tradition. In an unequivocal way, the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, states that no authority, no superior, can force a Christian (cleric, monk, or layman) to do something against God’s revealed Faith and Law. For no Christian is bound to follow false shepherds – wolves in sheep’s clothing. If someone were to obey, then “in this case obedience would be unlawful” (S.T.II-II, q.104, a.5, ad 3).
If we carefully meditate on the extent of the destruction caused by the two World Wars, or on the universality of the moral destruction caused by the abandonment of traditional and classical Christian values, we can easily understand that the modernity is blatantly dominated by the most unimaginable excesses. Nothing is more characteristic of this age than the vanishing of every form or legitimate authority. In saying this I am not original at all. Hannah Arendt, in an essay published in 1954 (“What is Authority?”), publicly and categorically proclaimed that “authority has vanished from the modern world.”
Overwhelmed by such a terrible context, – the origins of which can be found in the long series of revolutions that begin with the Protestant one – , the bishops gathered at the First Vatican Council supported the dogma of limited infallibility, omitting extensive discussion of the possibility of a heretical pope and the appropriate canonical procedure for such a situation. Paved by the ultramontanist mentality, the road to what Dr. Peter Kwasniewski calls “hyper-papalism” was opened for traffic. The pope easily came to be considered not a vicar of Christ but a substitute for Him, or – as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said – “an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law,” with full rights to change everything without any limit.
Should we be surprised, then, that Rod Dreher is convinced that “the Pope can legitimately abrogate all previous Roman missals?” Not at all. Because in the current context Dreher seems to be right. Living in a predominantly “orthodox” country, I have repeatedly noticed how believers of the Eastern “orthodox” Church perceive mainstream (i.e. Novus Ordo) Catholicism: as a bunch of non-religious modernists capable of anything. Repeatedly, when I tried to address their criticisms, I was immediately countered by the mention of the most terrible event that ever happened in the history of the Church: the change of the Liturgy by Pope Paul VI. That is why, as Saint Robert Bellarmine did in his polemics with the Reformation, we must – before anything else –correctly answer Rod Dreher’s question: “What are the limits of the Pope’s power?”Nothing would make our hearts rejoice more than if, by God’s mercy, a saintly pope – comparable to Gregory the Great or Pius V – would do so. Will this ever happen?
Latest from RTV — OUR LADY of LA SALETTE: “I will fight for you!”
[i] Rod Dreher, “What Does It Mean To Leave Rome For Orthodoxy?”Available at: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-does-it-mean-to-leave-rome-for-orthodoxy/ (Accessed 1 June 2023).
