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 ' 1. Unam sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam Apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc firmiter credimus et simpliciter 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 videlicet 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 ordinationi resistit, nisi duo sicut Manichæus fingat esse principia: quod falsum et hæreticum esse judicamus. . 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 Christ 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 Decrees, 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 any authority for the assertions of these controversialists, beyond their own ipse dixit. It should be here noted that those Ultramontane writers, who pretend that this Bull was afterwards materially modified by the Bull of Clement V. entitled Meruit, are in error. That Bull did not retract a syllable of the Unam Sanctam; it merely declared that no alteration was intended to be effected by it in France. The principles of the Bull itself were left untouched; indeed rather confirmed. We therefore revert to the dogmas as to the Papal power so clearly laid down by Boniface VIII.; and to avoid all misconception we will glance for a moment at the practical commentary which this Pontiff furnished, and which is quite sufficient to remove any doubt as to his meaning and intentions. Let us then, for a short space, contemplate this Papal power in the exercise of its prerogatives, bearing in mind the observation of Count de Maistre, the favourite expositor of its claims, and whose work is quoted with so much admiration by the Jesuit professors of the Roman University, 'The power of the Pope is without any bounds except those which are interposed by the blindness and malevolence of kings;' and also bearing in mind the exhortation of Dr. Manning, the leading propounder of its rights, to the Papal Union of London: They must have no half-fearful, no half-hearted assertions of the 1 De Maistre, Du Pape. Sovereign Pontiff's claim; they must not fear to deduce to England and to the world, through the free press of England, the Sovereign Pontiff's claim to temporal power, and the duty of the nations of the earth to return to his allegiance.'1 Boniface VIII. was Pope for eight years, and succeeded in 1294. The next year Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, having incurred the forfeiture of his kingdom, in consequence of default in paying the tribute which the Pope had imposed on making him king, the Pontiff was pleased to absolve him from the penalty of forfeiture, while he exacted from him a renewed oath of fealty for his kingdom.2 About the same time he wrote to Philip the Fair, King of France, expressing his assured and firm trust that, both in his own affairs and necessities, and also in those of his kingdom, he would, without delay, have recourse' to the Pope. Presently he writes to James, King of Arragon, reminding him that Pope Martin V. had, in consequence of the injustice of Peter, King of Arragon, in invading Sicily, duly deprived him of the kingdom of Arragon, and given over his dominions to be seized by Catholics; and had subsequently granted the said kingdom to Philip of 1 Times, Nov. 9. The italics are ours. 2 These and the following facts relative to Boniface VIII. are derived from the Continuation of Baronius, by Raynaldus; from Guetteé, Histoire de l'Église de France, tom. vi.; and from the Abbé Migne, Encyclopédie Théologique, art. 'Pape.' |