CHAPTER IV.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF HAS NOT, JURE DIVINO, ANY ORDINARY JURISDICTION OVER THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

JURISDICTION, properly so called, consists not merely in a persuasive influence and authority without coercion, but in a coercive power, to which obedience is due, and which can enforce its acts by penalties. I maintain that the bishop of Rome has not, either jure divino, or by immemorial and universal exercise, any such jurisdiction over the catholic church; and I hope to show, that this conclusion is legitimately deduced from principles which are entirely free from censure even in the Roman church itself. In speaking of this jurisdiction also, I do not mean to deny, that in extraordinary circumstances, when the faith is endangered, and when a great necessity exists, the bishop of Rome, and all other bishops, may exercise their office in any part of the church. I am now speaking of ordinary jurisdiction.

SECTION I.

THE ROMAN BISHOP HAS NOT, JURE DIVINO, ANY ORDINARY JURISDICTION OVER THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF OTHER

BISHOPS.

In maintaining this proposition I shall adopt the arguments of Bailly, a Roman theologian of the highest

credit in his own communion. He says, "Jure communi ac Christi instituto, S. Pontifex immediatam jurisdictionem in alienis diœcesibus non habet, neque in illis episcoporum munia ordinarie exercere potest "." This is proved from constant tradition and the consent of the pontiffs themselves. Thus St. Leo (Epist. 84. Epist. ad Jul. Coens. Epist. 77.) acknowledges that each bishop has jurisdiction over his own people. The council of Carthage, in 525, after the example of preceding African synods, forbad any appeals to the apostolic see. St. Gregory the great (lib. ix. ep. 22. al. xi. ep. 22.) says, " Si sua unicuique episcopo jurisdictio non servetur, quid aliud agitur nisi ut per nos per quos ecclesiasticus custodiri debuit ordo confundatur?" The councils of Salingestadt, A. D. 1022, cap. 18, Limoges, A. D. 1031, Aquileia, in the twelfth century, Lambeth in the thirteenth, forbad penitents and offenders to go to Rome for absolution unless their bishops permitted it. The council of Rheims of 200 bishops, in the twelfth century, would not confirm the privileges granted by Calixtus II. to the monastery of Clugny, to the prejudice of the diocesan; though the Roman pontiff himself was present. John XVIII. having sent, in 1004, cardinal Peter to consecrate a church in the diocese of Tours, which had been built contrary to the will of the bishop, "all the bishops of France," says Glaberius, a contemporary writer, "detested it," since "it was confirmed by abundant authority of old, that no bishop should presume to do so in the diocese of another, unless by his request or permission." Other facts and monuments innumerable are referred to by Bailly, in the works of Baluzius, Fleury, the Mémoires du Clergé, Procès-verbal de l'Assemblée de 1682, to

a

Bailly, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. ii. p. 310, &c.

prove that these principles have been always adhered to by the Gallican church. The Faculty of Theology frequently declared, that the Roman pontiff had no ordinary or immediate jurisdiction in all dioceses; especially in its censure of Vernantius, A. D. 1666. Of the same sentiment were Hincmar (t. ii. ed. Sirm. p. 608. 436, 437.), the celebrated archbishop of Grenada, in the council of Trent (Palavit. Hist. C. T. lib. xv. c. 16.), Petavius, Thomassinus, (t. ii. discipl. par. iv. lib. i. c. i. n. 19.), Fleury (Hist. Eccl. lib. lviii. n. 51. lib. lxxxiv. n. 42. lib. xciii. n. 43.), the continuer of Tournely, (t. vi. p. 607. de præc. Eccl. c. iv. de 4 præc.). Bailly concludes, that "the pontiff is pastor of the universal church in this sense; i. e. in urgent necessity, and in certain extraordinary circumstances, he may provide for various churches, and supply them with confessors or preachers." This we fully admit: the same right is vested in every catholic bishop in case of necessity.

In fact, if the Roman pontiff were entitled to act episcopally whenever he pleased in any diocese, he would be really "universal bishop," a title which Gregory the great condemned as blasphemous. Such a principle would be entirely opposed to the whole discipline of the church, which has always believed each bishop to be invested with the immediate care of his own flock by the Holy Ghost. We may conclude then, not only that the pontiff has no ordinary jurisdiction over the clergy and people of other bishops, but that this doctrine is altogether free from censure in the Roman church.

SECTION II.

THE ROMAN BISHOP HAS NOT, JURE DIVINO, ANY ORDINARY JURISDICTION OVER OTHER BISHOPS.

The jurisdiction claimed as of divine right for the

Roman pontiff over other bishops, may be distributed into three parts, viz. legislative, judicial, and administrative or executive: under these divisions I shall proceed to examine it.

I. The Roman pontiff has not, by divine right, any coercive LEGISLATIVE power over other bishops.

1. He cannot make any decrees of faith, morals, and discipline, which are absolutely binding on other bishops. This principle is maintained as relates to questions of faith and morals, by the fourth Gallican article of 1682, where it is said that, "In questions of faith, the pontiff has a principal part, and his decrees extend to all churches, and to every church in particular; but that his judgment, is not irreformable, unless the consent of the church be added." This article is most convincingly defended by Bossuet, as founded on catholic tradition. In fact, as Bailly observes, it has always been the doctrine of the Gallican church, that "it is the right of bishops to judge in matters of faith." Delahogue proves that "bishops alone are, jure divino, necessary judges of controversies of faith "." Consequently the judgment of controversies of faith cannot be amongst the "majores cause" alleged to be reserved to the Roman pontiff jure divino; nor can bishops be under any obligation to refer such causes in the first instance to him; nor can they be bound to believe whatever the Roman pontiff may choose to decree in faith and morals; more especially as Delahogue proves, that "It may, with sound faith, and without any note of error or schism, be denied, that the Roman pontiff, even speaking ex cathedra, has

d

b Bossuet, Defensio Declar. Cler. Gallicani.

с

308.

d Delahogue, Tract. de Eccl.

Bailly, ut supra, t. ii. p. Christi, p. 386.

the gift of infallibility." This being the case, it is evident, that whatever respect may be due by bishops to the judgments of the Roman pontiff concerning faith, it is not such a respect as to prevent them from exercising their own right as judges of faith divino jure, and either accepting or rejecting the papal decrees, as they are accordant or not with scripture and tradition.

The same observations may be applied to papal laws of discipline. The second Gallican article of 1682, maintains the doctrine of the council of Constance, that the Roman pontiff's authority is inferior to that of a general council; and the third article concludes from this principle, that "the exercise of the apostolical power (of the Roman see) is to be limited by the canons made by the Spirit of God, and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world; and also that the rules, customs, and institutions received by the Gallican church and kingdom, are of authority; and that the boundaries of the fathers remain unshaken." This proposition, which denies the right of the Roman pontiff to make binding regulations in discipline contrary to the laws of general councils, or to the canons and customs of particular churches, is defended by Bossuet, Tournely, &c.; and Bailly says, that among the liberties of the Gallican church it is reckoned that, "It belongs to bishops to make decrees in matters pertaining to discipline;" that the Roman pontiff "cannot at pleasure dispense with the canons, but only for just causes;" and that "he cannot derogate from the laws or customs of provinces, nor even from the legitimate privileges of particular churches." Bailly observes, that "the intention even of universal synods, in making

d Ibid.

Bailly, De Eccl. Christi, t. ii. p. 309.