It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:50 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 On Temporal and Spiritual Authority - Bellarmine 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post On Temporal and Spiritual Authority - Bellarmine
My copy of this just arrived. It's stunning! A beautiful translation, and a very nicely produced volume too. This book contains large chunks of The Controversies, saving Mr. Daly much time and effort when he finally gets around to his predestinated task of translating the entire work. :)

http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.ph ... t&Itemid=1

At $14.50, this book is a screaming bargain. Grab it while it's available. Be prepared to give up a day when it arrives, as it cannot be put down once opened. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: On Temporal and Spiritual Authority - Bellarmine
From the above work, pp. 303-305. This text is Bellarmine answering Barclay on whether kings may rightly be deposed. Bellarmine quotes Barclay, including when Barclay quotes Bellarmine from other works, and even refers to himself by name in the third person. The book from which the text is translated is entitled, On the Temporal Power of the Pope. Against William Barclay, and was published in Rome in 1610.

________________________________________________

This is, then, what we say, that in order for divine law to be held with respect to preserving the true religion, it is allowed sometimes to modify human law and to transfer a kingdom from an infidel to a faithful person when either it is not possible or hardly possible for the true religion to be preserved otherwise.

But again Barclay takes exception: “This is all true, that is, that by human law it happens that this or that man is king. But beware, reader: do not be deceived. Bellarmine omitted the main point; he should have added, ‘but once we have this or that king, it is of divine law to obey that person in civil matters with every honor and reverence.’ With this addition, which no Catholic can deny, his argument is completely destroyed.”

I have already taught that once we have this or that king, by divine law we must obey him as long as he sits on the throne. But it is not of divine law that he should sit on that regal throne as long as he lives, for it can happen that either he himself abdicates his authority, or that he falls from his kingdom after having been overcome by another king, or that he is deposed because of heresy; and in whatever manner he may cease to be king, also obedience to him ceases to be owed.

But, Barclay says, “From Bellarmine’s opinion in De Summo Pontifice, book 2, chapter 29, the council is not allowed to judge, punish, or depose a Pope who is trying to upset and destroy the Church of God, but it is allowed only to resist him by not doing what he commands and by preventing his will from being executed. Why do we not think the same, and with even better reason, about kings? Since they too are superior to their peoples (as the same author attests in De Summo Pontifice, book 1, chapter 9, and book 3, chapter 19) and have no judge on earth? And since, moreover, some theologians of great name have thought that the ecumenical council is provided with a larger authority over the Pope than that which the people might have over the king?”

I reply that if the Supreme Pontiff became a heretic and tried to destroy the Church by driving it away from the Catholic faith, without a doubt he could he deposed or certainly he could he declared deposed by the council, as is gathered from the canon “Si Papa,” distinction 40,[178] and neither Bellarmine nor any other Catholic denies this. Therefore, from this very point Barclay could have understood that it is not surprising if kings can he deposed because of heresy, even if they have no superior in temporal matters, since the Pope could be deposed for a similar cause, and he has no superiors on earth either in temporal or in spiritual matters. As to what I wrote in book 2, chapter 29, that the Pontiff cannot be judged or deposed by a council, this is meant aside from the reason of heresy, that is, if he should seem to be wanting to upset or destroy the Church with his way of living and his morality only. In fact, there is a difference between the Pontiff and the king: the Pontiff has absolutely no superior on earth, since he is the principal servant whom the Lord placed above all His household (Luke 12), of whom the Lord himself says in that passage that if that servant behaves impiously and starts to beat the menservants and the maids, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken, then the Lord will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and He will punish him most severely,[179] and therefore the Lord does not wish him to be punished by the household or by one of its members, but He reserves to Himself judgment of that servant. The king, however, did not receive the kingdom from God immediately, hut the people transferred the authority to him, and moreover, if the king is or was Christian, he is subject to the Pontiff as a sheep is to the shepherd, and even if he does not have any temporal superior in temporal matters, nevertheless he has a spiritual superior whose authority extends also to temporal matters; thus he can be deposed by the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ. As to the fact that some learned men thought that the council is above the Pope to a greater degree than the kingdom is above the king, we are not much troubled by their opinions, since the contrary can he gathered from Scriptures and even from the decrees of general councils, and on this topic we wrote enough in the second book of De conciliis.

But maybe somebody will ask: if the Pope has absolutely no superior on earth, by what right can he be deposed by a council or by the Church for heresy? The answer is ready: while men can be expelled by the Church through excommunication for other crimes, heretics exit and separate themselves, and, in a sense, they excommunicate themselves, as St. Jerome noted, explaining those words of the apostle in Titus 3: “A man that is an heretick … being condemned of himself.”[180] Therefore, if the Pontiff became a heretic or an infidel or an apostate – which I do not think can happen – he would be not so much deposed as declared deposed by the council.

178. This is canon 6, distinction 40, of the first part of Gratian’s Decretum (text in Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 1. col. 146).
179. This is Bellarmine’s paraphrase of Luke 12:45-46.
180. Titus 3:10-11.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: On Temporal and Spiritual Authority - Bellarmine
Thanks John!

John Lane wrote:


I reply that if the Supreme Pontiff became a heretic and tried to destroy the Church by driving it away from the Catholic faith, without a doubt he could he deposed or certainly he could he declared deposed by the council, as is gathered from the canon “Si Papa,” distinction 40,[178] and neither Bellarmine nor any other Catholic denies this. Therefore, from this very point Barclay could have understood that it is not surprising if kings can he deposed because of heresy, even if they have no superior in temporal matters, since the Pope could be deposed for a similar cause, and he has no superiors on earth either in temporal or in spiritual matters. As to what I wrote in book 2, chapter 29, that the Pontiff cannot be judged or deposed by a council, this is meant aside from the reason of heresy

Quote:
But maybe somebody will ask: if the Pope has absolutely no superior on earth, by what right can he be deposed by a council or by the Church for heresy? The answer is ready: while men can be expelled by the Church through excommunication for other crimes, heretics exit and separate themselves, and, in a sense, they excommunicate themselves, as St. Jerome noted, explaining those words of the apostle in Titus 3: “A man that is an heretick … being condemned of himself.”[180] Therefore, if the Pontiff became a heretic or an infidel or an apostate – which I do not think can happen – he would be not so much deposed as declared deposed by the council.


The text speak by itself :) Notice also the clause "which I do not think can happen", with which I totally agree :D

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:56 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.