Points to Ponder:

[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority." [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Letter Mirari Vos §9 (circa August 15, 1832)] 

Points to Ponder:

[O]ne who strives to ascend to the highest place must needs rise by steps or paces, and not by leaps. [St. Gregory the Great]

On Ecumenical Council Statements of Papal Magisterial Authority:
(Musing of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Disclaimer: The material presented below was originally written* as part of a longer project but excised due to the project running overlong. It is presented here in a revised form with a few small additions.

It seems appropriate after considering papal claims to review what various ecumenical councils have said on the subject. Let us begin with a speech delivered to the Council Fathers by a priest at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) who was there as the legate of Pope Celestine I:

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.{1}

Moving on to the Council of Chalcedon, the following can be found in the acts of that synod:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.{2}

From Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), we move to Constantinople III (680-81) where in a letter to the Emperor on the proceedings of the Council, the Fathers stated the following:

[B]eing inspired by the Holy Ghost, and all agreeing and consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho, which he sent to your mightiness...[t]he highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word (θεολογίας). For the ancient city of Rome handed you a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho.{3}

One of the most significant statements comes from an unexpected source. Nicaea II (787) was an ecumenical council called to discuss religious images and iconoclasm. In the second session, the papal legates presented a letter from Pope Hadrian. While this does involve papal claims, I am putting it here because Pope Hadrian's letter was approved by the Nicaea II council. Among the passages pertaining to papal primacy claims were this lengthy extract:

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors.{4}

With Constantinople IV (869-70), though much of the synod was disciplinary and later repealed, a key portion of the synod was retained; namely, the incorporation of the Formula of Hormisdas into a solemn profession of faith. The First Vatican Council explained it as follows:

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: 

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion{5}

The same First Vatican Council also published the following on the Council of Lyons II (1274):

[W]ith the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: 

"The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."{6}

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence (1439) which the First Vatican Council rendered as follows:

The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.{7}

After encapsulating prior definitions of ecumenical councils, the First Vatican Council prior to issuing a solemn definition on papal infallibility{8} had this to say about the magisterial authority of popes:

"[T]heir Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers, and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’.

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”{9}

Finally, we have the Second Vatican Council where this matter was refined further still.{10} The historical record is clear however one wants to try and nuance it. In a nutshell: there was an understanding in the Church from its earliest days by first the popes themselves and later on by ecumenical councils of the Magisterial prerogatives of the Roman Pontiffs over the universal church.

*Update: Though I closed Rerum Novarum nearly two years ago, I was unaware at the time this piece was first published of the papal claims of Pope Hadrian I which were read out in his Letter to the Second Council of Nicaea II. As this ecumenical council is one of the seven accepted by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, it seemed appropriate upon further reflection to revisit this piece, write a brief transition paragraph, insert the pertinent material in chronological order, renumber the remaining sources, and publish an updated version. -SM (circa 11/20/23)

Notes:

{1} Philip the Roman Legate: Speech at the Council of Ephesus on Behalf of Celestine I Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)

{2} Excerpt From the Catholic Encyclopedia Article The Council of Chaldedon (circa 1913)

{3} Excerpt From the Catholic Encyclopedia Article Third Council of Constantinople (circa 1913)

{4} Pope Hadrian I: Excerpt from his Letter to the Second Council of Nicaea (Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217) as quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia Article Second Council of Nicaea (circa 1913)

{5} Council of Constantinople IV Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §4,2 (circa July 18, 1870)

{6} Council of Lyons II Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §4,2 (circa July 18, 1870)

{7} Council of Florence Quoted From First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §3,1 (circa July 18, 1870)

{8} And while I am not about to go into it at this time, I will merely note in passing that the actual scope of papal infallibility is not very well understood by most Catholics today.

{9} First Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus as Quoted in a Rerum Novarum Post On Papal Heresy, Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc. (circa February 9, 2019)

{10} This subject will be covered in an upcoming project.

On Papal Claims of Magisterial Authority:
(Musing of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Disclaimer: The material presented below was originally written as part of a longer project but excised due to the project running overlong. It is presented here in a revised form with a few small additions.

The papacy underwent a development in its earliest years; however, there are clues to be had as to how the popes conceived of their magisterial authority from the earliest days. Without further ado, we start with the late first century and Pope Clement I who in his Epistle to the Corinthians admonished the rebellious Corinthians as follows:

[Y]e therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.{1}

The Anglican church historian Dr. T. G. Jalland explained the significance of this intervention as follows:

If it is true to say of the Roman intervention that ‘the authority is implicit, it being left to subsequent generations to make explicit the reasons which prompted an instinctive action’ (Lowell Clark, First Epistle of Clement pg. 20), we are still left with the question as to the source from which the instinct itself was derived. Instincts are usually traceable to habits of past generations. Was the source in this case merely the habituation of the Roman people to the government of others: or was it not rather, as the whole tone of the epistle would suggest, some custom which could claim a sanction apostolic or even Dominical in origen?{2}

From the late first century, we move into the late second century and a controversy surrounding the celebration of the feast of Easter. The Lutheran church historian Dr. Adolph Harnack explained what happened in the following way:

[Victor] ventured by an edict (one might say a pre-emptory edict) with reference to the arrangement of ecclesiastical feasts to proclaim the rule of the Roman practice as a general rule of the Church and to announce that any local church would be excluded as heretical from the fellowship of the one Church, if it did not adopt the Roman arrangement. How could Victor have ventured upon such an edict (still less to put it into actual effect, even if he had the strength to do so) unless it was established and recognized that in the decisive question of faith it was eminently the function of the Roman church to determine the conditions of the "common unity"? How could Victor have made such an unheard-of demand to the independent local churches, unless, as Bishop of Rome, he had been recognized as the guardian of the "common unity."{3}

Moving to the third century, we find arguably the first example of the Roman Pontiff making an explicit reference to the power of the keys to modify a significant part of church discipline.{4} Dr. Adolph Harnack explained the situation as follows:

Callistus was the first who emphasized the consequences [of the supposition that Paul and Peter founded the church at Rome]. If Tertullian names him scornfully ‘pontifex maximus’, ‘episcopus episcoporum’, ‘benedictus papa’, and ‘apostolicus’, these [appellations] are so many allusions to the fact that Callistus has already claimed a primacy for himself, or rather that he has annexed to his person as bishop the primacy which the Roman church possessed…From the motivation, in so far as Callistus appealed (for the first time in history) to Matt. xvi. 18ff to justify his action; and from Tertullian’s opposition, for Tertullian treats this edict not as directed locally to Rome, but one which is pregnant with consequences for all of Christendom.{5}

It was only a matter of time before a pope would come about who would tie together and embody explicitly everything that was implied in the increasingly regular claims of the popes.{6} This happened in the fifth century with Pope St. Leo the Great:

Leo is credited with asserting the authority and primacy of the successor to St. Peter in all Church matters, even enlisting the help of the current Roman emperor, Valentinian III, who issued an edict to the bishop in Gaul mandating “that nothing should be done in Gaul contrary to ancient usage, without the authority of the bishop of Rome, and that the decree of the apostolic see should henceforth be law.” When St. Leo’s position on Christ’s natures prevailed at the Council of Chalcedon, it helped launch the papacy into the position of dominance it has enjoyed ever since.{7}

From that point, it was a small step towards a sixth century pope settling a church schism by basically ordering eastern churches as a condition for his communion the swearing of a Profession of Faith containing the following explicit formulation:

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.{8}

And of course we have Pope St. Agatho I in a later controversy explaining his view of the papal primacy in these words to Emperor Constantine IV:

I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.{9}

It is not hard from that point to make the trajectory to a pope flat out claiming that not only is the Apostolic See the highest authority but that no one could judge the pope but God.{10} As one can readily see, the view of the popes of their Apostolic prerogatives is quite clear. It just so happens that a similar understanding was also shared by the early and later ecumenical councils as well.

Notes:

{1} Pope St. Clement I: From His Epistle to the Corinthians (circa 96 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{2} Dr. T. G. Jalland: From His Work The Church and the Papacy (c. 1944) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pgs. 129-30 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{3} Dr. Adolph Harnack: From His Work Dogmengeschichte, 4^th ed., pp. 489f (c. 1904) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{4} Arguably what Pope St. Callistus I did in 220 AD or thereabout is a far more significant alteration of presumably inalterable tradition than what Pope Francis did with Amoris Laetitia in the controversial Chapter Eight.

{5} Dr. Adolph Harnack:  From His Work Dogmengeschichte, 4^th ed., pp. 492 (c. 1904) As Cited in B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954) Quoted From the Writing The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (circa February 2, 2002) extracted from material originally published on February 21, 2001.

{6} The "increasingly regular claims of the popes" to which I refer here is to a particular primacy of authority in the Church.

{7} Stephen Beale: Excerpt From His Catholic Exchange Article Why Pope Leo Was Great (circa November 13, 2012)

{8} Pope St. Hormisdas I: Excerpt From His Formulary of Hormisdas (circa 517 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{9} Pope St. Agatho I: Excerpt From His Letter to Pope Constantine IV (circa 681 AD) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Post More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc. (circa February 11, 2019)

{10} "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon." [Pope St. Nicholas I: From His Letter to Emperor Michael (circa 865 AD) as Paraphrased by the First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)]

Revisiting the Subject of Private Revelations:

Though I have written more completely on the subject in years past, the following was occasioned by the words in dark green below. Without further ado...

One often hears it said today that, "Fatima is [merely] a private revelation."  While many subjects who make such statements are well-meaning, and while the assertion is even true in a limited sense, often they are made with the purpose of minimizing the revelations at Fatima to the point of insignificance, by way of suggesting they may be ignored by any Catholic who wishes to do so.

Actually, no one is obligated to believe in any apparition, period. You would be wise to not take this beyond what the Catholic Church teaches on private revelation.

Someone is not more or less Catholic for accepting or rejecting any apparition. If anything, apparitions (even approved ones) can be a pathway to schism or worse when those who are devoted to them in any way place said devotions above their required assent to the Church's Magisterium. (Which is nor optional.)

Apparitions are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology and those that do engage in no small amount of abuse of them. (For example, the person on your thread criticizing Pius [XI] and Pius XII for not avoiding WWII and its aftermath because of not "obeying Fatima" or some nonsense like that.) Apparitions can actually do more harm than good unless those that follow them use them correctly. If they are used in any way for more than helping the person renew their own faith through repentance then they are being abused. If they are used as requirements of the Faith by anyone, they are being abused.

Yes, Fatima is merely a private revelation. If you personally find the arguments for it convincing, then you can give it the assent of human faith but that is all. This is what the Church since the time of Benedict XIV has taught on private revelations. It would be advisable not to go beyond that.

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor is In" Dept.)

This is a response to a response to a thread posted on Saturday. My words will be in regular font while words of sources either block quoted or in light blue font.

I can refute all of what you wrote in response with just one observation: It's simply not true that the Church teaches, or has ever taught, that a pope cannot teach heresy

Actually, that is no refutation because you are flat out wrong. The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has "always taught" this the same way she has "always taught" things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so. But since anyone can make sweeping observation claims without backing them up, I will take a few moments and touch lightly on this stuff.

As for your words:

And as to that allocution from Saint Pius which you cited: There's truth in it, but the ultramontanism of it is not authentically Catholic. It's hyperbolic pious piffle that is not grounded in the Scriptures or in the tradition of the Church, and any bishop of Rome who talked that way in prior centuries would have been laughed at and ignored as a pretentious crank, and rightly so. 

You sound like the Orthodox who say the same things about papal primacy. They point to the numerous and weighty examples of the popes over the centuries exhorting and commanding obedience to them in matters of faith as "hyperbolic", "exaggerations", "misunderstanding the ancient primacy of honour", and a whole host of similar claims. To apply your claim about Pope St. Pius X's words seriously, you should swim the Bosophorus because at least then you would be honest with what you evidently believe. Pius' words are in substance no different than Clement of Rome telling the Corinthians "[y]e therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." Geez, what a pretentious crank he was! And do not even get me started on the more forceful claims of his successors in subsequent centuries.{1}

Actual Catholic doctrine, as dogmatized by ecumenical councils and actually taught and exemplified by the broader tradition, is much more modest. 

You are wrong. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know about the Deputation De Fide of the First Vatican Council where the schema that would later be promulgated as Pastor Aeternus would be explained in detail by Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen in his authoritative Relatio.{2} One of the subjects discussed there was the question of whether or not a pope could teach heresy. I will get back to this in responding to your later posting further down. Spoiler alert: it does not countenance your interpretation!

My observation from above still stands: Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

Actually, you are merely regurgitating claims already dispatched in the earlier response which is a variation of the argumentation fallacy of argumentation ad nauseum and that is quite the definition of laziness{3} on your part to be blunt.

As to claims by the Catholic Church, there are no claims of the pope being able to teach heresy in the early church. The reason is of course because he did not. Originally, there was not the sort of full understanding of what was involved in the papal primacy as we have now but there are pointers and examples both of what was said as well as what was not said. Again, there is no evidence of record of the early church popes teaching heresy. And this was attested to by witnesses at the early ecumenical councils as well as in the Formula of Hormisdas which was a profession of faith prescribed by Pope Hormisdas as the requirement of his communion by the Acadians to end their longstanding schism in the early sixth century -part of which read as follows:

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.{4}

This formulary was signed onto by the churches in the west and the bulk of the churches in the east as well. The words are clear and unequivocal: the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See. This would be an impossible claim to make if the Popes of Rome had ever taught heresy, could ever go into schism, or could ever go into apostasy. And as a Profession of Faith, it would fit the criteria of a dogmatic judgment by Pope Hormisdas or what would later be called an infallible pronouncement.

This was the standard understanding in the Church where the pope was concerned for a good thousand odd years. Pope Agatho re-affirmed this understanding after the sixth ecumenical council when he declared the following to Emperor Constantine IV after he dogmatically settled the chief controversy of his time:

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.{5}

Can you believe that St. Agatho: river of tears, prostrated mind, fully embraced and followed in all things, etc? Gee, what a pretentious crank he was huh?

For a third witness, a subsequent ecumenical council of the Church in dispute with the estranged Eastern Churches reiterated the aforementioned Formula of Hormisdas in its profession of faith 350 years after it was first promulgated. I could cite a lot more examples but the three above are adequate to make the point that not only did the early Fathers and Doctors did not believe the Roman Church could err but the very idea that a Pope could be a heretic was both foreign and repugnant to them as it should be to any genuinely faithful Catholic.

The mere fact that there exists an entire corpus of traditional literature debating and discussing what recourse the Church has against a manifest and unrepentantly heretical pope goes to show that the mind of the Church has always envisaged the possibility of a pope being such.

Actually, this is also false. The mind of the Church did not always [envisage] the possibility of a pope being such as the examples from above well demonstrate. However, there did come to be some literature on this matter which requires explanation and here goes:

The literature you speak of had its origins chiefly in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.{6}

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making{7}, the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held{8}, but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.{9} Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."{10}

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

In actuality, the principle had already had been settled prior to the sixteenth century but the chaos of the Protestant Reformation resulted in greater probing of this issue than had previously been the case{10} but the end result was the same as before except it is much better understood now. And while one can piously and probably hold that even in the recesses of his inner person a pope cannot be a heretic or believe anything heretical, Church teaching from what I can tell{12} only extends to the formal acts as pope: he cannot teach heresy period. By logical extension, he cannot be in schism from the Church either. Nor can he apostasize. Claims to the contrary{13} put those who make them in the company of the Acacian schismatics and others to whom as Pope St. Agatho put it are the heretics [who] have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. 

I thought about concluding this piece with Pope Agatho's words but in the interest of providing you with some comfort, will point you to an area where it is much safer to opine on these matters; namely that of lesser errors{14} and matters of the prudential order. The Church has stated the following in a very important Instruction that I recommend that you read when you can: Donum Veritatis from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published back in 1990. To wit:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.{15}

The admission of some particular cases means that the Church's Magisterium takes a more nuanced approach to these matters in the prudential realm than prior statements might appear to say, dealing as they all did with fundamental matters of faith and church communion. While one should not rashly cast a wide net in this area of course, it nonetheless is permissible from time to time for someone properly informed and of the proper spiritual disposition to wade into those water. I would particularly recommend reading carefully if time constraints prevent you from reading the entire document focusing on sections 21-31.

Nevertheless, the views you have expressed up to this point in time are not orthodox ones. Hopefully you will consider the above material very carefully and revise your statements to be within the boundaries of acceptable Catholic orthodoxy.

Notes:

{1} I will not even go over how the Protestants reject Catholic doctrinal claims in the same fashion on a whole host of issues!

{2} There is no more authoritative exposition on the correct interpretation of the contents of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus than Bishop Gasser's Relatio.

{3} Intellectually as well as spiritually.

{4} From the Formula of Hormisdas (circa 519 AD)

{5} From the Tome of Agatho (circa 681)

{6} I am unaware of any place where St. Thomas Aquinas even discusses the possibility of a heretical pope and there were a number of controversial matters of his day where the subject itself would have been apropos. For that reason, the Angelic Doctor's silence on this matter speaks volumes. (My more limited understanding of Aquinas' work is reinforced by the claim of Dominican scholar Ulrich Horst, OP who has made the same observation.)

{7} The 1054 date is really more a fiction than a reality insofar as the schism of the Churches really only crystallized into permanence with either the Sack of Constantinople or the Fall of Constantinople (depending on how you interpret the evidences).

{8} Read: most likely.

{9} Cardinal Bellarmine died more than seventy years prior to Pope Alexander VIII's condemnation of the 4 Articles.

{10} Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen: From the Relatio of Vincent Gasser delivered to the Deputation De Fide (circa July 1870)

{11} The same thing happened with other apostolic beliefs which were settled early on and were later challenged in the cauldron of controversies. For example, the status of the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible was definitively settled by the Council of Carthage in 418 AD but challenged anew by the Protestant Reformers only to be re-addressed by the Council of Trent. Likewise, the idea that the supreme authority in the Church was the Pope was challenged by the conciliar movement that arose in the aftermath of the Western Schism (even hijacking the Council of Constance in the process) only to be put down again at the Council of Florence.

{12} Though one could I suppose piously and probably believe things extend further, my only interest is in what the Church teaches as required on this matter and that does not go beyond formal teaching.

{13} Read: the sort of claims you have up to now been making.

{14} This does not preclude from the possibility that there could be lesser papal errors in doctrine than heresy, schism, or apostasy of course. And by logical extension, there could thus also be errors in prudence viz church discipline and general administration of course.

{15} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis, Section 24 (circa May 24, 1990)

On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor Is In" Dept.")

My words will be in regular font.

I'm afraid your understanding of both Protestantism and of Catholic doctrine concerning magisterial authority is but evidence of lack of good catechesis in your upbringing.

You mean I do not engage in trad fantasyland. Actually, it is your profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that is the issue.

What makes Protestantism "Protestant" is not mere disagreement with the pope, nor mere disobedience to him or to another bishop, but the theological rationale for doing so.

You have set up a strawman here as what makes Protestantism "Protestant."

Luther, Calvin, Zwinglic, Cramner, Latimer, Ridley, and co. were not merely disagreeing with the popes of their day, they were dissenting from the traditional, common faith of all Christendom

I am sure the Orthodox will love to see you write them out of the common faith of Christendom as you have here.

and inventing new doctrines in the process.

Yes, they invented new doctrines but they also claimed they were restoring the Church from the corruptions of their period (both real and imagined) to a more ideal period in time. Gee, what groups make that claim today?

Papal primacy does not mean that a pope's heretical teaching is subscribed to,

You make the fundamental error of presuming that a pope could teach heresy. The Doctors of the Church were pretty firmly unanimous that what you are claiming could not happen and indeed the First Vatican Council accepted this interpretation. More on this in a moment.

nor does it mean that everything a pope says is always believed to be true,

Again, strawman. If you actually read what I wrote you would know I did not say this.

nor does it mean a pope has to be obeyed in whatever he commands.

Again, strawman. Assent is required in matters of faith and morals. Obedience is required in church discipline and church government. You need not agree with the latter but your agreement or lack thereof is not the basis for whether assent is or is not required. And of course matters of the prudential order allow a wider degree of possible viewpoints.

In just the same way that any legitimate superior -- from one's parents to civil authority, from the local parish priest to the local bishop -- may be criticized and may even be disobeyed when his commands are either intrinsically immoral or will imperil the very life of the community, so with the bishop of Rome.

Actually, your position above is not that of the Catholic Church:

"[T]heir Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers, and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32]. 

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”{1} 

Those who claim a pope can teach heresy, be in schism, or apostasize flatly contradict the teaching of the First Vatican Council and are proximate to heresy. This does not of course mean the pope cannot err. However, he cannot err to the extent of heresy, schism, or apostasy if the words of the First Vatican Council have any real meaning to them and are not just pious slogans.

He's no different in this respect. He's not the Catholic religion's version of the Dalai Lama or the Mormon Prophet. He's an ordinary man, like any other, and we have no divine assurance that he will always be orthodox, or that he will always govern or teach rightly.

Actually, we have divine assurance that the pope will always be orthodox in his teaching -see the citation from above. While it is true that popes are not protected from lesser errors as well as defects in prudence; at the same time, prudence is to a certain extent subjective insofar as people of good will can differ on whether something is or is not imprudent.

Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda

Your words betray you. Furthermore, they would not meet with the favour of Pope St. Pius X:

"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine... 

When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,' [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him. 

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt... 

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many...who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."{2}

And far from a mere opinion, the above is a papal allocution which means it is part of Pope Pius X's papal magisterium to which religious assent is owed.

simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

I have engaged the substance (to the extent there is any) of the criticisms of many of those in trad fantasyland over more than two decades. I have found almost all the arguments pathetic and self-serving as well as doctrinally and morally deficient. The mirrors many of these purveyors have with historical heresies and schisms is quite startling actually for anyone who takes time to study church history. But that is a matter for another time.

The bishop of Rome is not the sole recipient, within the Church, of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I never said he was.

He is not sole priest, prophet, and king:

See my prior comments. Boy, an army of scarecrows could be made from the straw you are supplying in your reply ;)

All baptized and confirmed Catholics enjoy the assistance of the Holy Spirit in discerning truth from falsehood and His assistance in prophetically resisting obstinately errant persons, both inside and outside the Church.

That is what I have been doing with you and your ilk.

This is not "protestant" in the least: I'm not starting my own rival sect, and I don't claim the authority to juridically depose an errant cleric. I remain firmly within the Church, as do all the other distinguished prelates and theologians who have taken Pope Francis to task for his many errors

Actually, the extent of your communion with the Church is debatable. There is a difference between someone who commits material error and those who are more obstinate in error. And the way you took it upon yourself to impute modernist heresy to a pope and canonized saint, I am not so sure we are dealing with innocent material error here.

Notes:

{1} First Vatican Council: Excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)

{2} Pope Saint Pius X: Allocution (circa November 18, 1912)

Points to Ponder:

 "Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." [Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto (circa 1894)]

The Origins and Approval of the Malines Conversations

Points to Ponder:

"When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. ‘You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.'

If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquility, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent.

Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished." [Pope Pius XI]

Points to Ponder:

"Even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults." [Pope Pius II: Allocution Multa Hic Hodie (circa November 21, 1459)]