The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-03-22
rHE popEs rEMpoRAL powER.
Letter from Professor McClintock to Hon. Joseph
r. Chandler.
IcoNcLUpED.1

since Boniface died miserable des h. From.
that day to this, the Popes of Rome lave either
explicitly avowed doctrines equival ut in sub
stance TO his, or, by silence, have gi en- them
tacitconsent. NoPopehas authoritatisely denied
the Indirect temporal authority of tho Holy See;
defy you to produce the instance. Your speech
promises one, and looked for it with eager eyes,
but could find nothing nearer to, it than the
decloTetion Of the Cardinals (madet in 1871, to
serve a pressing political exigeny in Great
Brittany that "the See of Rome fever taught
that an oath to kings separated fri m the Cath
| Ollie communion may be violated; or that it is
| lawful for the Bishop of Rome to evade their
| temporal rights and dominions" Eeggng your
pardon, this does not touch the poirt at all, and
| you know it. Appeal no more, then, 70 the PoPE,
lest worse thing come unto you
| But you plant yourself upon the Gallican ex-
| PLANTATION Especially as lamely given by M.
! Gosselin) of the conduct of the Popes in the
middle ages, in deposing kings, &c. You might
| have given your hearers a little information, by
| the way, about NJ. Gossehn's book, 6Ad you been
possessed of it. 1t is treatise on e The Poaoer
| Of the Popes during the Middle A5es, de-" by
NJ. Gosselin, director in the Semina; y of ST. Sui
pice, Paris: translated by the Rev. N. Kelly, of
Maynooth. (London, Dolman: Bah imore, MUIR
| ply 4 Co. 1858. vols. 8vo.) 1t Is written by
| a Gallican, who Denies cor at least is unwill-
| ing to assert the temporal authority Of the
Church over sovereigns by divine tight" His
| object is to show that the tenure by which the
| Popes held temporal authority was not the jas
| divinuDa, but the jus politiclm-tkA laws of the
Catholic States of the middle ages You follow
this view throughout, and cite NJ. Gosselin, as if
(instead of writing against the ct,rrent Papal
opinion, as that eminent writer vey well knew
he was doing) he expressed the sc. .led doctrine
Of ~. IL L. 70 ii IN
not tell your readers land in en- fity again /
must suppose you did not know tpat this book
is treated with great and deser ed severity,
from the Roman standpoint, IN Brownsons
Review for January, 1854, (pp. 8 seq.) You
doubtless were not aware that BN'wnson land
remember the endorsement of thu Bishops in
Guiding tFrancis Patrick Kenric and fJohn
Hughes, on the back of his jour naD charges
Gossein with "reading history backwards; :"
with taking startling liberties nth the Ian
guage of ilustrious pontiffs and distinguished
doctors;" with cORceding that, ~ he is right,
Popes, Councils, Doctors, and the great body of
the faithful for centuries, entertained an errone-
Gus theological opinion; and witk setting forth
ia plausible but illusory theory, inUented to
recommend the Church to her e1enaies, or to
escape the odiuna altoays attached to truth By
the acOrtd." These are only few tit-bits; if you
will but read the article for yourself, you will
see how quietly Brownson fays Gosseln, and
how he would be likely to fay you, should he
ever take you in hands. But hear his deeara-
ton upon the main point made in your speech
that without which all the rest is mere "leather
and prunella:
"All history fails to show an instance in which
the Pope, in deposing temporal sovereign,
processes to do it by the authority vested in him
by the pious belief of the faithful, generally re-
ceived maxims, the opinion of the age, the con-
cession of sovereigns, or the civil constitution
and public laws of Catholic States. On the
contrvry, he always claims to do it by the au-
thority committed to him as the successor of
the Prince of the Apostles, by the authority of
his Apostolic Ministry, by the authority COM
mitted to him of binding and loosing, by the
authority of Almighty God Of Jesus Christ,
King of kings, and Lords of lords, whose min
lister, though unworthy he asserts that he is,
or some such formula, which soeemnly and ex-
presSly sets forth that his authority is held by
divine right, by virtue of his ministry, aud ex-
ercised solely in his character Of Vicar of Jesus
Christ on earth. To this, we believe, there is
not single exception. Wherever the Popes
cite their titles, they never, so far as we can
find, cite human title, but always divine title.
Whence is this? Did the Popes cite false
title? Were they ignorant of their own title?"
as they are called and of the relation of the
Popes toward them, may still further aid you
when you next undertake to speak in Congress
on this question. The French church from an
early period was distinguished by a greater
sense of independence than that of any other
country in Europe. Certaie limits were set
to the abuses of Papal power BY the Pragmatic
Sanction of Louis TX, A. D. }269, and by that
of Bourges, in 1888, but the so-called " Cali
can liberties of the present iay took their rise
in the famous disputes bet'feen Louis XIV
and Innocent XI, concerning the right of APP
pointing to livings, called the Regdle. The
King summoned the bishops to an assembly at
Paris, which, in 1852, passed the following four
propositions: |. That the Popes have no power
from God to interpose, directly or indirectly, in
the temporal concerns of princes or of sovereign
States. III. That the authority of General
Councils is superior to that of the Pope. III.
That the usages of the French Church are in
violable. ". That the Pope is not infallible,
in points of faith, unless his decisions are at
tended with the consent of the Church. OF the
hubbub which these propositions excited-of
the treatlses of Lombardus (Sfondrat) Dubois
and others against them, and of their magnif-
cent and triumphant defence by the "Edgle of
MeauT," must infer that you have never heard;
for your speech implies that the Church always
of them. But it is more important that you
should know what the Pope thought about them;
and mean to tell you. In the brief of limo
cent XI, dated April llth, 1882 you will find
the following rather strong language "Per
presentes litteras, trddita nooiS Gb OmRipotenti
Dec ductOritdte, improbdmtsS, reScindimus Ell
caSSaDluS quae in lists vestris comitiis acta stunt
in negotio regali@, cum omnibus indie secutisn
Perhaps you may say that this condemnation
refers only to the acts of the Assembly concern
ing the regaLe. Listen then to Alexander VI,
in his constitution entitled Inter nluhiplices,
published on the 18th of August, 1890. "0mnia
ct singula, que tam quoad extensionem juris
regalie, guam quoad declaratonem de potestate
ecclesiastical, &C quatuOr propOsitiOnes IN ca
c0ntentGs . acta ct gesta fusrunt improbamus,
cGssdnlus, irritamus ct annulamus" {" All the
acts of the Assembly with reference TO the ex-
tension of the jus regdLe, and also the declara-
ton concerning the ecclesia teal power, and
the four propositions therein contained, we do
condemn, make roid, inrdld ate, and annul.
It's not necessary to follow tb Gallican Church
further have given enoug to show that its
declaration is, in substance, yours and that
the Pores HAVE CONDEMNED md ANNULLED 1T.
This condemnation they have never retracted
and to-day, the Pdpal party ii the Church is as
bitter against Gallicanism rs Alexander VI
was in 1890. l have taken the briefs Just cited
from no Protestant book; my authority is
Monseigneur Gousset, Cardinal Archbishop of
Rheims, man who stands higher at Rome
than, perhaps, any other French prelate. You
will find what | have given you above, and
more, in his notes to Bergiers Dictionndire de
Theologie, vol. III, p. 57l, seq. If you wish TO
make further acquaintance with this eminent
prelate's writings, you may see copious extracts
mir. IL ASfscI