Зображення сторінки

face VIII., in 1302, in the Bull Unam Sanctam. It is necessary to remember the immediate cause of this Definition of Faith. Philip the Fair of France and Edward I. of England, being engaged in war relating to their respective temporal rights, Boniface VIII. holding it to be his divine office to restrain Christian nations from wars about their own concerns, and to keep their military force in hand to be disposed of at his sovereign pleasure for the extirpation of infidels, heretics, and those who were disobedient to the “Holy See,' enjoined these monarchs to suspend hostilities on pain of anathema. They, however, had the audacity to reply that in temporal matters they acknowledged no superior but God.' A doctrine so scandalous having been especially upheld and acted on by King Philip, the Vicar of Christ, who had previously reminded him of the fact that three kings of France, his predecessors, had been deposed by the Popes, convened a synod at Rome in 1302, to which he summoned the French bishops, for the purpose of taking into consideration the king's most wicked conduct. At this synod, which was held in the Pope's presence, a definition or creed was drawn up which was duly published Ex Cathedra,' and which declared the true faith in condemnation of the error and insanity' of Philip and Edward in claiming temporal independence. The definition thus made runs as follows, omitting proofs and illustrations which are rejected by Roman Catholic theologians as not matter of faith ; and also adding numerals to distinguish the several propositions. 1. We are compelled by the obligation of faith to believe and hold,

that there is one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and we

accordingly firmly believe and simply confess it. 2. Out of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. 3. Therefore there is one body, and one head of the one and only

Church, that is to say Christ, and the Vicar of Christ, Peter,
and Peter's successor; not two heads, as if it were some monster.
Whether, therefore, the Greeks or any others (Kings Philip,
Edward, &c.) say, that they are not committed to the charge of
Peter and his successors, they must necessarily confess that they

are not of the flock of Christ. 4. We are instructed by the words of the Gospel that in this Church,

and in its power, are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. Certainly, he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter gives ill heed to the word of the Lord. . .. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, i.e. the spiritual and the material sword; but the one is to be exercised for the Church ; the other by the Church. The one is the Priest's (Pope's); the other is in the hands of kings and warriors;

but is at the nod and permission of the Priest (Pope). 5. One sword is necessarily subject to the other; and the temporal

authority is subject to the spiritual. 6. According to the testimony of truth; the spiritual power has to

institute the temporal; and to judge it, if it be not good. 7. Therefore, if the earthly power deviates (from what is good), it is

to be judged by the spiritual power. 8. If a minor spiritual power deviates, it is to be judged by its

superior; but if the supreme power (Papal) deviates, it may be

judged by God alone, but not by man. 9. This (supreme) authority, though given to man and exercised by

man, is not human, but Divine, given orally by God to Peter;

as well to himself, as to his successors in him. 10. Whosoever, therefore (kings included), resists this power, thus


ordained by God, resists God's ordinance; unless, like Manichæus, he pretends that there are two principles; which we

adjudge to be false and heretical. 11. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that to be

subject to the Roman Pontiff is for every human creature (kings and nations) necessary to salvation."

' 1. Unam sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam Apostolicam urgente fide

credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc firmiter credimus et simpli

citer confitemur. 2. Extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum. . . 3. Igitur Ecclesiæ unius et unicæ unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita,

quasi monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi Vicarius Petrus Petrique successor. ... Sive ergo Græci, sive alii se dicant Petro ejusque successoribus non esse commissos, fateantur necesse se de ovibus

Christi non esse. ... 4. In hac [Ecclesia] ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem vide

licet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur. . . . Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, male verbum attendit Domini. ... Uterque ergo est in potestate Ecclesiæ, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis. Sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exercendus. Ille Sacerdotis, is manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum

et patientiam Sacerdotis. 5. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio; et temporalem auctoritatem

spirituali subjici potestati. ... 6. Veritate testante, spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem instituere

habet, et judicare si bona non fuerit. 7. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali. 8. Sed si deviat spiritualis, minor a suo superiori (judicabitur] : si vero

suprema, a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari. ... 9. Est autem hæc auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per

hominem, non humana, sed potius Divina, ore Divino Petro data, sibique

suisque successoribus in ipso. 10. Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatæ resistit, Dei ordina

tioni resistit, nisi duo sicut Manichæus fingat esse principia : quod

falsum et hæreticum esse jud nus. 11. Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ, declaramus,

dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. (Corpus. Jur. Canon. Extravagant. Commun. lib. i. c. i. ; Raynald. Contin. Baronii Ann. 1302.)

On reading this definition and exposition of the Faith, we see at once its perfect coherence throughout. The Pope, as Peter's successor, has been appointed by God his Vicar, and the head of His Church (3). Therefore the power of the Pope is not human, but divine (9). Whoever resists it, resists the ordinance of God (10). No one can be saved unless he is subject to it (11). The Vicar of Cbrist cannot be judged by man, but only by God (8). His power is superior to that of all earthly sovereigns, who are to be subject to him even in temporals (3, 4, 5). Their military forces are at his disposal (4, 5). The Pope possesses the right of appointing and judging kings (and of course of sentencing them to deposition, &c.) (6, 7). Nothing can be more intelligible or more consistent than this. The Pope holds upon earth the delegated power of the Godhead. He rules therefore over all, whether they are kings, bishops, or private individuals, or nations. Everything is subject to him in temporals as well as spirituals. His power is unlimited, supreme, and absolute. He is the universal autocrat. Nothing can be simpler and more intelligible.

Now this plain meaning of the Papal definition, which is obvious at once to every one possessed of a grain of common sense, does not exactly suit the purpose of certain Roman Catholic controversialists, like Drs. Ullathorne, Manning, and Newman, who laugh to scorn the idea that decrees of this nature can be read except through the spectacles of the theologian; or that any one who is not

versed in the mysteries of scholastic and canonical lore, can by possibility comprehend them, or the Vatican De crees, or the statements of Pius IX. It is passing strange that whatever is defined about the Papacy should be so unintelligible.

These writers make no such assertions with regard to the definitions of the Popes and the Church generally. They admit that when definitions in faith and morals are made, the faithful generally, and not theologians alone, are competent to understand their meaning. But when claims on behalf of the Papacy which they think unpopular, are dogmatically put forward by authority, then forthwith they insist on removing them from the cognizance of the faithful to the depths of the theological schools. We highly commend their discretion. But do these ingenious writers really mean to assert, that decrees on the Papal power alone are unintelligible to the Christian world, while all other definitions even on the most abstruse points of the Catholic creed are intelligible ? If so, they are only proving that the one class of definitions are binding on Christians, and the other are not that the Catholic Creeds are for Catholic Christianitybut that the doctrines regarding the Papacy are only for the atmosphere of the schools. We should be glad to see these writers produce the definition of faith which gives theologians the right of teaching the whole Church, and dictating to the intelligence of bishops, clergy, and laity; no such definition has been produced, nor is there

« НазадПродовжити »