7 Canus, de loc. Theol. 1. v. c. v. seq. 171: Ecclesiae vero auctoritatem eam nunc appello, quae synodorum etiam generalium ac summi Pontificis est. Haec enim est una res prorus, ut non differat multum inter Ecclesiae, Conciliorum Sedisque Apostolicae judicia, propterea quod connexa haec et colligata sunt, quemadmodum esse videmus humanum corpus et caput. Cf. Gregory of Valentia, 1.c. p. 363. Thus spoke, on the 1st March 1438, Bishop Peter of Digne before Eugenius IV.: ' Quamquam una et eadem atque indivisa sit potestas Papae ex Concilii generalis, tamen aliter et aliter. . . . Dixi quod aliter et aliter eadem potestas est in utroque quia in Ecclesia fundamentaliter et in habitu in Papa vero actualiter in exercitio' (Cecconi, Studii Storici sul Concilio di Firenze, vol. i. p. dlxviii.).

8 Vide Schäzler, Die Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit aus dem Wesen der Kirche bewiesen, Freib. 1870, pp. 91, 92. Cf. the whole of the tenth chapter, p. 89 seq.

$9.

Are, then, the bishops still really judges, and not merely advisers of the Pope? The bishops assembled at the Council are judges.1 1. Because with the Pope they represent the whole apostolate of the Church, which in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem pronounced a judicial judgment. 2. Councils attribute to themselves this office of judging; the Pope recognises it in the confirmation of decrees, which are signed by all the bishops.2 3. If the bishops were merely counsellors, there would be no reason to limit the right of speech only to bishops and to persons endowed with some part of the episcopal authority; it would more fitly belong to learned theologians and canonists. In so far as the Pope takes counsel of the bishops in preparing a definition may they be considered counsellors; but they must not be regarded as mere counsellors.

1 Vide Schäzler, Die Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit, 1.c. p. 103; the following also teach it: Turrecremata, Sum. 1. iii. c. lxiii. lxiv.; Canus, l.c. q. 2 seq. 163; Bellarmin. de Conc. 1. i. c. xviii.; Salmeron, tract. 79 (Andries, p. 283, note); Bened. XIV. de Syn. Dioec. 1. xiii. c. ii. n. 3. The introduction of the Const. Vat. Dei Filius, of 24th April 1870, has the words: Sedentibus nobiscum et judicantibus universi orbis episcopis.'

2 Upon the formula in which the bishops confirm the decrees of the Council vide Hefele, Conc. i. p. 18 seq.

Greg. de Val. 1.c. p. 367 ad 4: 'Quodsi quis propterea quod Pontifex hujusmodi Patrum opera atque judicio in determinanda fidei sententia utitur, quis putet Pontificis consiliaros eos appellari posse, non est de vocabulo magnopere laborandum.'

§ 10.

Neither the Council of Trent nor of the Vatican has decided the question whether episcopal jurisdiction is derived from Christ immediately or mediately through the Pope. The majority of the Fathers at Trent were of opinion that it was communicated immediately from the Pope. The Pope charged his legates, for the sake of peace, to leave this question untouched, since a decision on the subject was not then necessary against heretics. The Vatican Council only teaches that the Pope has the supreme and immediate episcopal authority over all Churches and all the faithful, according to the teaching of the majority of theologians for centuries; that from the Holy See all power in the Church is transmitted to pastors and flocks.2

1 Dr. Friedrich is quite unauthorised in saying (Tagebuch, Supplement, p. 437 seq.) that at Trent the judgment contained in the Creed of the Second Council of Lyons and the propositions of the Fifth Lateran Council were unrecognised, that the Council of Florence was repudiated (p. 199), and that 'the claims of the Curial system were not heard' (p. 244). 2 Cf. Andries, op. cit. p. xxvi. seq.

PART III. THE POWER OF THE POPE IS NOT THE ONLY POWER; IT IS NOT ARBITRARY AND ABSOLUTE.

§ 1. The power of the Church not solely vested in the Pope. Council of Trent. §2. The opponents of the Council repeatedly contradict themselves. § 3. Restriction upon the power of the Pope. § 4. No change made by the Vatican Council in this matter. § 5. Apprehensions founded upon mere suspicion. § 6. National Churches and bishops as vicars of the civil power.

§ 1.

It has been asserted that, in opposition to the Tridentine canon, according to which there exists a divinely appointed hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, the decrees of the Vatican Council say that the Pope is the only divinely appointed bearer of any church authority. But first, the Vatican Council does not say this; on the contrary, it expressly states that the bishops are appointed by the Holy Spirit; and secondly, the Tridentine canon1 speaks of the hierarchy of order,

VOL. I.

but not of the power of jurisdiction, neither of the relation of the three grades to one another, nor of that of the bishops amongst themselves. Although the Pope possesses the fulness of power in the Church, he does not alone possess all power. Although it may be within his authority to limit the jurisdiction of a bishop, the bishop does not on this account become a mere deputy or vicar of the Pope. The bishops now, as ever, are called, and are, Ordinaries. They possess an ordinary power, which they exercise by virtue of their office, and which they can impart to others. The Council of Trent makes a distinction between the ordinary power of bishops (potestas ordinaria) and the special power delegated to them by the Pope. As long as the episcopal office is an essential element in the organism of the Church, which it will be till the end of the world, so long will bishops be no mere Papal vicars.3

1 Sess. xxiii. can. 6, de Ord.

2 S. Thom. Opusc. de Perfectione Vitae Spiritualis : Notandum, quod ordinarium ab ordine dicitur; unde ordinarium videtur importare id, quod secundum communem ordinem in republica fit semper; propter quod illud, quod competit diversis gradibus et statibus in republica ordinatis ordinarium dicitur. Unde potestates competentes in hujusmodi institutis, in ecclesia sc. patriarchali, archiepiscopali, episcopali, et parochiali, dicuntur ordinarii, et illi, qui simpliciter in talibus statibus et gradibus statuuntur, ut regant populum per se vel per alium secundum gradum et statum, in quibus statuuntur, dicuntur ordinarii. Potestas autem commissarii proprie loquendo videtur dici quando alicui ab aliquo committitur eadem potestas quae est sua ordinaria, secundum quam vice ejus aliquid agat. Unde collatio talis potestatis non dicit novum gradum potestatis, sed dicit commissionem ejusdem potestatis ab instituto in ipsa potestate, ita quod potestas commissionem ejusdem potestatis ab instituto in ipsa potestate ita quod potestas commissaria est commissa ab instituto in gradu potestatis simpliciter. Et ita patet, quod praelati isti a Papa positi non sunt commissarii sed vere ordinarii.'

* Vide Schäzler, Die Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit aus dem Wesem der Kirche bewiesen, Freib. 1870, p. 45.

$2.

The opponents of the Council are on this point full of contradictions. In 1868 Schulte wrote, 'Scarcely any trace remains of the strife between so-called episcopalism and papalism.' Yet now he says that, by the Vatican definition of the 18th July

1870, the bishops have been degraded into Papal deputies and diocesan vicars; and that this degradation of the bishops is contained in their oath to the Pope, which is now, he says, recognised as a real vassal's oath. But the form of the oath now standing in the Pontificale is more than two hundred years old; its matter existed in the formulas of Gregory VII.4 Schulte thinks that many bishops may not have been acquainted with the consecration oath, anyhow may not have properly considered it when it was read over to them, many may not have understood it.' But this would have very little importance as far as regards the question of right. It is alleged that bishops are degraded by holding as distinctions the titles conferred upon them by the Pope of assistant at the Papal throne, domestic prelate,' &c. But would it be considered also a degradation if a bishop were to become knight, companion, or grand cross of this or that civil order, privy councillor, &c.? Bishops in using in their title the words 'by the grace of God and favour of the See Apostolic,' words of frequent use in the thirteenth century, clearly express that they are indebted to the See of Rome for their office.7 The opponents of the Vatican Council pretend that they desire the Church to be such as she was before the 18th July 1870;' and in reality they desire her to be such as according to the opinion of Febronius she was in the first six centuries, with a complete abstraction of mediæval developments, and a continual movement in favour of a national Church. Janus, the prototype of all New-Protestant literature, proves this, as well as the newspaper articles of the same party, and the publications of Friedrich and Schulte. The latter assumes that since the time of Gregory VII. the Church has undergone a complete change. The episcopal authority has been annihilated, crushed by Papal omnipotence.' And yet this change is said to have begun on the 18th July 1870! And those who now assert this could be good Catholics until that • fatal July day'! But if the life of the Church during long centuries was not according to her true constitution; if she found herself again at Constance and at Basle, having, therefore, lost herself both before and since, she could not be the true Church.10

6

She would long since have cersed to be the Bride of Christ, and would have been without divine assistance; the greater number of bishops and theologians would have erred in faith, and the separation of Protestants from Catholics would have been a lawful act. Wicliffe, like the opponents of our day, called the Pope Antichrist ;'11 but the whole Church has branded him and all his followers. Marcus Antonius de Dominis urged that the spiritual power of the Pope was a late development ;12 but all Catholics have judged him to be heretical.

Upon the words of Gregory I. 1. i. Ep. 38, ad Petr. Subd., in which he says to the bishops of Sicily, in B. Petri Ap. principis natalem (Romam) conveniant, ut ei, ex cujus largitate pastores sunt, gratiarum actiones solvant,' the remark: 'Idem profitentur antistites, dum se suis in epistolis et commonitoriis praefantur Apostolicae Sedis gratia episcopos. Sedem enim Apostolicam pro S. Petro usurpari et vice versa norunt eruditi

omnes.'

Schulte, ii. p. 68.

Friedrich, p. 141. This is just the language used by Edmund Richer (Du Plessis, t. ii. P. ii. p. 305) of the veritas justi regiminis Ecclesiae jure postliminii in Constantiensi et Basileensi Conciliis restituti.'

10 In 1644 the Sorbonne condemned several propositions of Brachet de la Milletière, in quantum damnant disciplinam et consuetudinem ecclesiasticam ab omnibus cath. communionis ecclesiis receptam, quantumcumque diuturnam tamquam abusivam et institutioni Christi ac evangelicae doctrinae contrariam,' as 'propositiones temerarius, Ecclesiae injuriosis et haereticas' (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. i. p. 20). The censure passed by the Faculty of Cologne upon the apostate De Dominis is also to the point (ib. P. ii. p. 192 seq.). Upon the first proposition, Mulier fortissima Ecclesia, miserandum in modum delituit,' it is said: 'Propositio haeretica, visibilitati Ecclesiae, quae nullo unquam tempore delituit, repugnans.' The further one, Ecclesia sub Romano Pontifice non est amplius Ecclesia sed respublica quaedam humana sub Papae Monarchia tota temporali; vinea est ad solum Noe inebriendum,' was called Propositio haeretica et maledica. The Sorbonne said upon the same proposition (ib. t. ii. p. ii. p. 105): Haec prop. 1 parte est haeretica; dicit enim veram Ecclesiam, cum non alia sit quam quae Romano Pontifici paret, jam desiisse ; pro reliqua vero parte est calumniosa et scandalosa.'

"Du Plessis, t. i. p. ii. p. 40.