Replies

Paul doesn't seem to value the "shut up and take it" attitude as much as Catherine does.

St. Paul was an Apostle, "his equal as regards the defense of the faith" (St. Thomas, II-II q. 33 a. 4), and he was opposing St. Peter's private conduct.

The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey. This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it. To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases. They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless.
There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. "See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified," wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI; "there is none other to whom I can appeal, since you have no superiors on earth." And again, a little earlier in the same letter: "Take care, as you value your life, that you commit no negligence."
... Is not the fervent prayer of an individual soul who asks such things for himself, already efficacious and infallible? If then the salvation of the Church demands that such and such a Pope should be removed, then undoubtedly the prayer we have mentioned will remove him. And if it be not necessary, why question the goodness of the Lord, who refuses what we wish and gives us what we ought to prefer? (Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate, VIII, III, 4, D)

***Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey.***

If you have no power to judge the rightness of wrongness of the Pope, but to simply obey they you have forfeited the gift of God, the basic human freedom of conscience.

Jesus said...

"Take heed that no man deceive you."

Jesus puts the principle of personal judgement and conscience on a higher plain that obedience to "authority". Your quotes seem to indicate you put uncritical obediance to authority on a higher place.

Let's say the Pope comes out and says, "It's ok to worship other gods". It seems your position would preclude you from regecting that teaching - because the Pope is the ultimate authority (higher than the Bible). My position would be, "What this man is saying is against the scriptures and is an attempt to deceive me. This is something Jesus warned me might happen, so I reject him and his deception."

***For no one on earth can touch the Pope.***

This goes against a basic scriptural principle that "God is no respecter of persons" or better stated as, "God has no favorites who can get away with evil."

Paul gives his readers a rare insight into his opinion of "authorities" (actually the entire Apostolic Counsel of the early Church) when he said...

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. ... And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me."

I want to bring your attention to:

"from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)"