Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): ‘It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.’ His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone. (2a2ae q. 104 a. 5 co.)
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Some Catholics hold that a faithful Catholic can never defy a Pope which would certainly be news for Saint Paul. One Peter Five brings up the case of Bishop Grosseteste:
In 1253 the Pope nominated his own nephew, Frederick of Lavagna, to a vacant canonry in Lincoln Cathedral! The mandate ordering Bishop Grosseteste to appoint him was something of a legal masterpiece in which the careful use of non obstane clauses [notwithstanding any statutes to the contrary] ruled out every legal ground for refusal or delay. This, then, was the Bishop’s dilemma: He was faced with a perfectly legal command from the Sovereign Pontiff, which apparently must be obeyed, and yet the demand, though legal, was obviously immoral, a clear abuse of power. The Pope was using his office as Vicar of Christ in a sense quite contrary to the purpose for which it had been entrusted to him. The Bishop saw clearly that there is an important distinction between what a Pope has a legal right to do and what he has a moral right to do. His response was a direct refusal to obey an order which constituted an abuse of authority. The Pope was acting ultra vires, beyond the limits of his authority, and hence his subjects were not bound to obey him in this.
In his reply to the papal command, Bishop Grosseteste accused Pope Innocent IV of disobedience to Christ and the destruction of the care of souls. “No faithful subject of the Holy See,” he wrote, “no man who is not cut away by schism from the Body of Christ and the same Holy See, can submit to mandates, precepts, or any other demonstrations of this kind, no, not even if the authors were the most high body of angels. He must needs repudiate them and rebel against them with all his strength. Because of the obedience by which I am bound, and of my love of my union with the Holy See in the Body of Christ, as an obedient son I disobey, I contradict, I rebel. You cannot take action against me, for my every word and act is not rebellion but the filial honor due by God’s command to father and mother. As I have said, the Apostolic See in its holiness cannot destroy, it can only build. This is what the plenitude of power means; it can do all things to edification. But these co-called provisions do not build up, they destroy.”
More about this remarkable man here. Normally of course Catholics should be quite obedient to the Pope. When the times are far from normal, and when a Pope is clearly acting against the Faith, a Catholic’s duty to Christ outweighs his duty to the Pope. To paraphrase Saint Thomas More: We are the Pope’s good servants, but God’s first. Normally the two parts of that statement are the same thing. On very sad occasions they are not. Go here to read a good article as to how the concept of obedience to religious superiors was altered by the Jesuits from the traditional understanding of the Church.
Helpful article. Of course, in the case of “Pope” Francis disobedience must be the norm since he is a heretic and a usurper.
In the case of Jesuits the Catholic concept of obedience has twisted in such a way that obeying Marx is often chosen above the law of God.
Everyone thinks they live in a unique time just because they don’t agree with the Pope. It’s times like this that obedience counts.
It’s times like this that obedience counts.
I agree Pinky, and it should start with the Pope being obedient to the teachings of Christ. You first, your Holiness!
John Paul II’s long and holy papacy caused a lot of Catholics to believe that the Pope was truly infallible in all respects. Not just in his official teachings on faith and morals but on everything from politics to fashion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people who said that since Pope Benedict drinks Fanta, other types of pop are un-Catholic.
I truly believe that God gave us Pope Francis to remind us how limited the pope’s infallibility actually is.
“You first, Your Holiness” is practically the exact opposite of obedience.
No it is not. A Pope does not have innate authority of his own. He is the Vicar of Christ. If a Pope acts contrary to his office he is not to be obeyed.
It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm
You can rebuke a pope but remain obedient and respectful. Two good examples are St. Catherine of Siena and the recent Dubia.
Part of the difficulty is that we’re not talking about specific cases here. Does teaching something different than a pope count as disobeying? Does sedevacantism cause scandal? Under what circumstances could a person justly say “I’m not going to obey the pope on A until he acts / teaches differently on B”?