Are the Pope's powers limited?

Whilst going through the Catholic Answers forums I came across a very familiar argument, someone suggested that the Motu Propio which allowed all priests who could to celebrate the Tridentine Mass would essentially be revoked by Benedict XVI's successor, someone else was disappointed with this and was met with the answer that the Pope could do whatever he wanted even abrograte the Tridentine Mass if he so wished and that was that.
This argument seems to be a fairly common one used to justify the so called 'suppression' of the Tridentine Mass between 1970 and 1988 as well as any of the popes controversial actions. The argument contains two assumptions:

1. That The Pope can essentially do whatever he want as regards the law 


2. That as a consequence it is never legitmate to disobey The Pope

Now aside from the obvious problem of portraying The Pope as some sort of Stalinesque dictator whose word is law and who can change his mind 20 times a day if he so wishes, contradict his predecessors and in short do anything but bind his successors there are several theological problems with this view.

Firstly St Peter's powers were given to him for a reason or end, and consequently as St Peter's successors a Pope only use's his powers legitmately when they use them in order to achieve that end. For proof of this we can look firstly at Scripture, in the Gospel of St John Chapter 21 we read 'When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep'

In the Passage Jesus commands St Peter to 'Feed my Lambs' and 'Feed my Sheep' by which The Church believes Jesus commanded St Peter to look after the whole church both laity (represented by the lambs) and the clergy (represented by the sheep) as a sheperd would his flock. Now what kind of Sheperd would feed his flock poison or abandon them to the wolves? Wherefore one can hardly be said to be disobedient if he refuses to take poison or flees from the wolves. Of course this is just my opinion but it is supported by that of several theologians and even the Magisterium itself.


That most famous of Anglican Converts Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman in a letter to the Duke of Norfolk addressing a Pamphlet by the British Statesmen William Gladstone concering Papal Infallibility made it clear that there were limits to the obedience owed to The Pope. He says 'In support of what I have been saying, I refer to one or two weighty authorities:— 

Cardinal Turrecremata says, "Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not ... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'One ought to obey God rather than man:' therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus)."—Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48.

Bellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says, {243} "In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required ... Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam), and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will."—De Rom. Pont., ii. 29.

Archbishop Kenrick says, "His power was given for edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from the love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he meet with obedient populations."—Theolog. Moral., t. i. p. 158.'

When, then, Mr. Gladstone asks Catholics how they can obey the Queen and yet obey the Pope, since it may happen that the commands of the two authorities may clash, I answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an "Absolute Obedience," he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.'
We can take several things from this quote:

1. It is legitmate to disobey or even oppose and resist The Pope  in several circumstances 


2. Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman believed that if the Pope demanded Absolute obedience he would be transgressing the laws of human society and further that he did not owe him absolute obedience

The idea that the obedience that is owed to a pope is not absolute but in fact limited is hardly therefore a novel idea but one has been expressed by The Church for several hundred years and has in nowise been condemned or anathemetized. Therefore it is those that demand an absolute obdience and loyalty to The Pope who are putting forward novel ideas, somewhat ironically in order to defend their view they have to put forward a view of The Papacy so extreme that even Vatican I did not embrace it.

Now even after showing that both scripture and numerous eminent and unquestionably Orthodox Theologians support the idea that the obedience owed to The Pope is limited some will still object and say that the Magesterium supports their position and therefore all the sources we have cited are irrelevant. Well let us examine whether the Magisterium did in fact embrace their position, the most obvious place to look for such a statement is Vatican I. So what in fact did this council say regarding St Peter and the Papacy?

'That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time' One can observe that the Council states clearly that the power was given to St Peter for 'the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church' now if God forbid the pope were to do or promulugate something which endangered the salvation of souls or was to the detriment of the church what should one do? All the theologians we have referred to including Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman make it clear that we should disobey such a thing, criticise it and some even say we should resist it.

Now those who disagree that the Pope's powers are limited will say to themselves 'ah! You haven't quoted the statement in context, what about the councils declarations on the powers of the Papacy?' And so here I will quote in full what the First Vatican Council states regarding the power of The Pope '

Wherefore we teach and declare that by divine ordinance,the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.Both clergy and faithful of whatever rite and dignity both singly and collectively are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.'

How then can one disobey The Pope if we are bound to submit to this power 'by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience' ? The answer is twofold:

1. First as we have shown St Peter's powers were given to him for a purpose, it is not legitmate to use those powers in order to go against this purpose or for another end than that which God intended


2. Second if we examine the quote clearly it says 'and true obedience' now what does true obedience mean? Obedience simply means to obey, but what does true obedience mean? It means this suppose the Pope declared that it was legal to commit murder, obeying this statement would be obedience but it would not be true obedience, why? Because one can hardly said to be required to obey the Pope when he contradicts natural or divine law, scripture or Tradition.

So we see that even The First Vatican Council does not support the position of those who would demand that all give the pope absolute obedience and believe that it is never legitimate to disobey him. 

In conclusion the Popes powers are indeed limited, they are limited because he cannot do several things:

1. He cannot command anything contrary to Holy Scripture or;


2. the Articles of Faith or;


3. the truth of the sacraments or;


4. natural or divine law 

All the above can best be summarised in the following sentence 'The Pope cannot legitmately do anything that endangers the salvation of souls' .