The Pope’s Authority Over Rulers

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 9, 1908

The Pope’s Authority Over Rulers

In a recent issue of the Catholic Mirror, the sermon of a Catholic priest is reported under this title: “Church and State. Each Given Full Power in Its Separate Sphere. They are Two Rulers. One with Authority over Spiritual, the Other Over Temporal Matters.” This priest quotes approvingly the words of Christ, “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s,” and declares that “age after age the Roman pontiffs, while claiming the right to censure and correct rulers for their unlawful and sinful acts, for in those days the rulers were members of the church and subjects of the pontiffs in spiritual matters no less than the humblest in their kingdoms, yet always paid them the greatest deference, and insisted on the obligation of obedience due to them from all.”

The priest refers to the famous bull, “Unam Sanctam,” issued by Boniface VIII in A. D. 1300, and explains that the statement that princes “are subject to the Roman pontiff in respect of sin,” means “with regard to their good or bad use of the power entrusted to them.” He also declares that Catholic philosophy teaches that “the temporal authority is supreme as long as it remains in its own domain, which is the procuring of peace and public prosperity of its subjects in the temporal order.”

The whole question of the relation of the church to the state is thus stated: “In these purely temporal matters, therefore, as long as they remain in the temporal order, the church claims no jurisdiction, and there is no possibility that the present Holy Father or any of his successors will ever interfere with the true allegiance due from his children to those that rule them according to justice and right in their search for temporal peace and prosperity.”

A little reflection will show just how much reality there is in this assertion that the church and the state are “each given full power in its separate sphere,” according to Roman Catholic doctrine. Princes are declared to be subject to the Roman pontiff “with regard to their good or bad use of the power entrusted to them;” and we are assured that “there is no possibility that the present holy father or any of his successors will ever interfere with the true allegiance due from his children to those that rule them according to justice and right.” In the qualifications thus made the jurisdiction of the church over the state is really assumed and the independence of the state is shown to be a mere figment. Whenever the Roman pontiff decides that a prince is using his power in a bad way, which generally means that he is opposing the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, he may be called to account; and if refractory, he may be deposed. If it appears at any time that a ruler is not ruling his subjects “according to justice and right,” while the Roman pontiff reserves the right to interfere with the true allegiance due from subjects to a sovereign, and he is thus, in the final analysis, the supreme ruler both of church and of state.

This view is in entire harmony with the facts of history. An illustration of the lofty claims of the Roman pontiff is found in the letter of Gregory VII to the Bishop of Metz, from which we take the following extract: —

As for those who maintain that kings can not be legitimately deposed by popes, I refer them to the words and the example of the Fathers; and they will learn that St. Peter said, “Be ye always ready to punish the guilty, whatever their rank.” Let them consider the motives which induced Pope Zachary to depose King Childeric, and to free all the

Franks from their oath of fidelity. Let them learn that St. Gregory in his Decretals [A. D. 590-604] not only excommunicated the lords and kings who opposed the execution of his orders, but that he even deprived them of their power. Let them not forget that St. Ambrose himself drove from the temple the Emperor Theodosius, calling him a profane man, sacrilegious, and a murderer.

Perhaps these miserable slaves of kings would maintain that God, when he said to St. Peter, “Feed my lambs,” excepted princes; but we will demonstrate that Christ, in giving to the apostle power to bind and loose men, excepted no one. The holy see has absolute power over all spiritual things: why should it not also rule temporal affairs? God reigns in the heavens; his vicar should reign over all the earth. These senseless wretches, however, maintain that the royal is above the episcopal dignity. Are they, then, ignorant that the name of king was invented by human pride, and that the title of bishop was instituted by Christ? St. Ambrose affirms that the episcopate is superior to royalty, as gold is superior to a vile metal.—“History of the Popes,” by Cormenin, Vol. I, page 371.

The separation of church and state, according to the Roman Catholic view, simply means that so long as the state is conducted in the interest of the church, and its dignitaries are subservient to the wishes of the church, the church will not interfere; but the church all the time reserves the right to correct and to depose those rulers who do really maintain an actual separation of church and state, and therefore permit perfect freedom of religious belief and practise. The smooth talk of priests in America, where the real Roman Catholic theory of church and state is not yet permitted to be put into practise, must not deceive those who know Roman Catholicism as it is in those countries where the Roman Catholic Church is in control. In such countries religious liberty is summed up in the liberty to believe and practise Roman Catholic doctrines. Roman Catholicism and liberty are opposite terms.