Questions coming from Mr. Vic Kempis:
* “The Pope and God are the same,
so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay,
Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.
* Pope Nicholas I declared: ” the
appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine
on the Pope, who ,being God, cannot be judged by man.”(Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7
Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
* The Pope is not only the
representative of Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the
veil of flesh.” Catholic National July 1895
* “We hold upon this earth the
place of Almighty God” Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20,1894
* ” All names which in the
Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which is established that He is
over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” On the authority
of the Councils,book 2,chapter 17
* The Pope is of so great dignity,
and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God,, and the vicar of
God.” Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary
Did Pope Pius V, Pope Nicholas and other statements that our Popes claimed to
be as God?
Alam
ko po sa sarili ko na hindi ito totoo pero kailngan ko ng proof na lahat ba ng
sinabi ng mga Popes ay totoo? Sinabi po ba nila talaga ito? Sana po masagot nyo po Father Abe kasi
humuhina ang faith ko pag nakaka sagap ako ng mga ganitong statements ng mga
anti-catholics. Thank you po Father. God Bless you , Mama Mary loves you ! (I
know in myself that this is not true but I need proofs if all these
were true Popes' statement? Did they really said these? Hope you could
answer these Fr. Abe because my faith is getting weaker every time I
read these kind of statement coming from Anti-Catholics.)
Since
Father Abe is too busy and now his blog was attacked once again by the
enemies of Christ let me answer your question by re-posting here a nice
argument made by another Catholic defender:
If there is one thing, one argument that some anti-Catholics use that would irk
me, it's their trying to prove the "Pope
is God" by showing various quotes from (supposedly) Catholic works
which show a Pope or a Cleric proclaiming that the Pope is equivalent to and is
God Himself under the flesh. I know a few will say, "Come on, these guys have their proof and even provide citations for
them! How can you refute these?"
I answer that: While these people may have done a commendable job of trying to
provide citations for a statement (a plus point in my book), providing
citations is not enough in many cases. I believe that one must also show the
statement in question in context
(cherry-picking one phrase and interpreting it removed from its context is just
intolerable, IMHO), show other related works (if possible) that corroborate the
statement, and always provide correct
citations. If the Church teaches that the Pope is God in human form, then why
doesn't a statement similar to that one appear in the Catechism, where just
about all things that Catholics
believe in are written? And be better sure that if there is any evidence to the
contrary, that it is published in the official
Catechism and not in local ones.
Now, let's first address three of these supposed 'quotes', shall we?
1.) These words are
written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To
believethat our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed,
is tobe deemed heretical."Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have
neverapproved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in
thegloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in1580 by Gregory
XIII."
Quite
believable, this one, isn't it? Yet the problem with this quote is:
1.) Pope Gregory XIII's Canon Law was published in 1582, not 1580 (though this
is just a minor quibble).
2.) António Pereira de Figueiredo (1761-1797) was a priest in Lisbon
who published many works, including a translation of the Bible and a work
entitled Tentativa Theologica (first
published in 1766; it is in this work where this quote supposedly appears), in
which he attacked the Papal predominancy in Portugal. The work was then
translated in Latin, Spanish and Italian and sparked a controversy; eventually
because of this, Pereira
was excommunicated.
3.) All that Fr. Pereira he says is that the passage in the gloss referred to
(in other words, the passage that is referred to in the gloss) appears in the
Canon Law edition. He does not say that the gloss itself appears in this
edition of the Canon Law (and it doesn't).
So, suppose someone were to write a false statement in relation to another
written work anywhere, would that affect the truth or otherwise the referenced
written work itself?
Now, let's move on:
2.) "The Pope is not only the representative of
Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."-Catholic
National, July 1895
Frs.
Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty already answered this question in volume 2
of their Radio Replies (which were
actually transcripts of a 1930's radio program hosted by them), so I would
defer to them here:
2-310. Pope Pius X made the
blasphemous claim that he was "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the
flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."
REPLY: A Protestant paper, the "Church
Review," in England,
October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having
uttered those words at Venice.
Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in
1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice,
and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what
he actually did say:"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself,
and therefore is a loving father.
The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is
love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love,
his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on Earth and in
Heaven."
1.)
The quote is said to have appeared from an English Protestant publication (October 3, 1895), not a Catholic one. As an
aside, that quote had also appeared earlier from another Protestant magazine
entitled Evangelical Christendom in
January 1 of that year.
2.) The actual words of Cardinal Sarto (later Pope Pius X; he only became Pope in 1903) says that the Pope represents Jesus
Christ, not that he is Jesus Christ, as this misquote (and those who use them)
loves to say.
3.) I haven't been able to find anything about Catholic National. There is however, a Catholic publication which
have the names National Catholic Register
which is the oldest Catholic newspaper in the United States; however, this
publication was begun in 1927.
Can someone at least show me proof that there was a 19th-century publication
entitled Catholic National, and that
the quote appeared in there?
3.) "We hold
upon this earth the place of God Almighty"-Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter
of June 20, 1894
This
one is a classic case of "cherry-picking
a quote out of context." The Encyclical mentioned here is Praeclara
Gratulationis Publicae, which called for the reunion of Eastern and
Western churches into the "Unity of the Faith". What then, does the
actual Encyclical say?
...A great deal, however, has been
wanting to the entire fulness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations
of public joy and reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude
of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts:
some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they
dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the same name of Christians.
This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is
impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were,
from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment
of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God
Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge
Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the
example of Our Redeemer and Master,
Jesus Christ, who when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His
Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one
mind and of one heart: "I
pray...that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they
also may be one in Us." And as this divine prayer and supplication
does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also
every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this prayer holds out
to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for
making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime
should be called and moved to embrace the unity of divine faith.
Pressed on to Our intent by charity, that hastens fastest there where the need
is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most unfortunate of all
nations who have never received the light of the Gospel, or who, after having
possessed it, have lost it through neglect or the vicissitudes of time: hence
do they ignore God, and live in the depths of error. Now, as all salvation
comes from Jesus Christ--for there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby
we must be saved--Our ardent desire is that the most holy name of Jesus should
rapidly pervade and fill every land.
1.)
If the Pope identifies himself as God, then why does he refer to the Lord Jesus
as "Our Redeemer and Master?"
Surely God cannot have a master as that would imply that there is someone
superior to him.
2.) The phrase is interpreted in the wrong sense by many here. In the Catholic
point of view, "we hold upon this
Earth the place of God" makes perfect sense, as Catholics believe that
the Pope is the Vicar (i.e. Representative) of Christ. What does a
representative do? He "holds the place" of the person he represents!
Far from claiming that he is God in the flesh, Pope Leo is just reaffirming his
position as Christ's representative (like a Prime Minister) on Earth.
4.) Pope Nicholas I
declared that "the appellation of
God had been confirmed by Constantine
on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb IX Dist.:
96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
This
is quite similar to an argument Frs. Rumble and Carty answered:
2-311. Pope Nicholas I said that
the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.
REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I.
say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:"Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it
is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher,
is judged by none."And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in
civil law, the king is "above the
law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself
has acknowledged the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil
jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.
If
I might add, the citation "Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret
Gratian Primer Para" is obscure. I checked his opera
omnia (whole works) here (based on Migne's Patrologia Latina) and found no document similar to the one above.
UPDATE (2010/10/03): After a bit of research, it now seems to me that
the "Gratian Primer Para"
refers to the Decretum Gratiani; for
those curious about Gratian, see this page; a full text
of his Decretum
is available here. Lo and behold, after a bit of tweaking I finally found the
source of our little quote (courtesy of the Internet ;)): it's from his Decretum, pars prima (Part One),
Distinctio XCVI, Canon 7.
Satis
euidenter ostenditur, a seculari potestate nec solui prorsus, nec ligari
Pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constantino (quem longe superius
memorauimus) Deum appellatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus iudicari
manifestum sit. Sed et Theodosius minor sanctae sinodo scribens dixit
Ephesinae primae. "Deputatus est igitur
Candidianus, magnificentissimus comes strenuorum domesticorum, transire usque
ad sanctissimam sinodum uestram, et in nullo quidem, quem faciendae sunt de
piis dogmatibus questiones seu potius expositiones, communicare. Illicitum
namque est eum, qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum episcoporum,
ecclesiasticis intermisceri tractatibus." (Et post pauca:) §. 1.
His itaque manifestis repertis aparet conministrum Ignatium per inperialem
tantummodo sententiam nullo modo potuisse prorsus expelli. In cuius dampnatione
quia presulum quoque assensus est subsecutus, aparet fuisse patratum id causa
adulationis, non legitimae sanctionis.
Part II
1.): "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all
power in Heaven and earth."
-Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities
Petrus Bertanous," attributed to Pope Pius V.
This
seems to be another case of 'hiding behind the curtain of obscurity' as we are
merely given the author's surname of Barclay, with no reference to a book
title.
As for the
identity of this mysterious 'Petrus
Bertanous', this author personally tends to believe that this refers to a
certain 16th-century Dominican named Petrus Bertanus Fanensis (aka Pietro
Bertano; November 4, 1501, Nonantola-March
8, 1558, Rome), who once
served as bishop (later cardinal) of Fano in Italy -- the present-day diocese
of Fano-Fossombrone-Cagli-Pergola -- and who, among with other Dominicans,
was apparently one
of the leading prelates at the council of Trent and was an orator and
advocate at that same council.
During the
papacy of Pope Julius III
(who reconvened the second period of the Tridentine council in 1551 after Pope
Paul III died in November 10th 1549 at the behest of Emperor Charles V/Charles
I of Spain), who entered into a league against the duke of Parma and Henry II of France (1547–59), the Emperor's
party requested that Julius admit eight people into the college of Cardinals.
Four of them are to be named immediately and the other four are to be reserved in petto until conditions became more
favorable; one of those whom they requested to be named immediately is Bertano,
who was a member of the imperial party. Eventually he, along with thirteen
others, were made cardinals on November 20, 1551, as a sign of reassurance to
Charles (especially considering that all fourteen were favorable towards him).
While at
first glance this connection may seem plausible (considering that both Pius V
and Bertano were both Dominicans), we have to consider the following:
1.) This quote is attributed to Pope Pius V by "Bertanous" (sic). However, Michele
Ghislieri O.P. only ascended to the Chair of Peter in January 7, 1566, about eight years after Pietro Bertano died.
How could someone who is not then a
pope make a statement about the papacy, much less someone who was dead at the time Ghislieri became pope?
2.) Considering that at the time Fra Pietro is still alive, Fra Michele still
does not have the power of pronouncing ex cathedra
statements - as he was not pope yet - are there chances that his statement
(let's suppose for a moment that his "words" are true and are either
not a misquote, mistranslation, or just flat-out made up) are actually
reflective of official Church
teaching?
3.) Are there any more reliable and independent sources for this quote, if any,
aside from this rather obscure (and badly-titled) one?
Some sources for this 'quote' add the following phrase: "Cardinal Cusa (i.e. Nicholas of Kues) supports this statement." Now, are
there any contents from Cardinal Nicholas' work which support this quote? Here
is a chronological listing of Nicholas of Cusa's works. If anyone can point
out a paragraph or a sentence in his works (if anyone has them) which says very
much the same thing as above (preferably the original Latin included), I'll be
glad to put that up.
2.) "The supreme teacher in the Church is
the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires... complete submission
and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God
Himself." Leo VIII, «On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens»,
Encyclical letter, 1890
We will ignore the minor typo (the pope at this
time is supposed to be Leo XIII, not the VIII) and go straight to tackle this
one.
The quote in the actual
encyclical (called Sapientiae
Christianae in Latin), paragraph 22, says the following:
Now, as the Apostle Paul urges,
this unanimity ought to be perfect. Christian faith reposes not on human but on
divine authority, for what God has revealed "we believe not on account of the intrinsic evidence of the truth
perceived by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority
of God revealing, who cannot be deceived nor Himself deceive."(24)
It follows as a consequence that whatever things are manifestly revealed by God
we must receive with a similar and equal assent. To refuse to believe any one
of them is equivalent to rejecting them all, for those at once destroy the very
groundwork of faith who deny that God has spoken to men, or who bring into
doubt His infinite truth and wisdom.
To determine, however, which are the
doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has
entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme
teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore,
requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission
and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God
Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by
faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in
shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might
wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear. Christian usage
attaches such value to this perfection of obedience that it has been, and will
ever be, accounted the distinguishing mark by which we are able to recognize
Catholics.
Admirably does the following passage from St. Thomas Aquinas set before us the
right view: "The formal object of
faith is primary truth, as it is shown forth in the holy Scriptures, and in the
teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the fountainhead of truth. It
follows, therefore, that he who does not adhere, as to an infallible divine
rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the primary truth
manifested in the holy Scriptures, possesses not the habit of faith; but
matters of faith he holds otherwise than true faith. Now, it is evident that he
who clings to the doctrines of the Church as to an infallible rule yields his
assent to everything the Church teaches; but otherwise, if with reference to
what the Church teaches he holds what he likes but does not hold what he does
not like, he adheres not to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible
rule, but to his own will."
Even
a cursory reading of the Encyclical would show that Pope Leo XIII refers to God
as if He was a separate entity - quite unlikely if you're claiming to be God in
human flesh!
Now, obedience to the pope "as to
God Himself" may make some feel queasy. But once again, from a
Catholic lens, this is not too surprising. After all, since Catholics believe
that God commissioned the Pope as his visible vicar (representative) in the
government of the Church, it would not be repugnant to render submission or
obedience to him, just as it would not be repugnant to listen to a king's
representative and obey what he orders in the king's name. Still, (contrary to
what some may think) we need to stress once again that Catholics do not hold the Pope as being equal or
even superior to God, as his title Vicar
of Christ shows. Think about this for a moment. How can a vicar, or a
representative be superior to the
one who has sent him? "No servant is
greater than his master" indeed.
3): "All names which in the Scriptures are
applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the
church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
-On the Authority of the Councils,
book 2, chapter 17
This
one already appeared in 19th century anti-Catholic works, such as Theological discourses on important
subjects, doctrinal and practical by James Thomson, 'Minister at
Quarrelwood', and Letters in the Roman
Catholic Controversy by William Brownlee, 'Of the Collegiate Protestant
Reformed Dutch Church' in New York, where it is attributed to Cardinal Robert
Bellarmine. By the way, for those seeking the work where all this appears -
which is part of his famous Disputationes, it
could be found in this
link (which also contains all, or most of, Cardinal
Bellarmine's work) under the title Controversiarum
de Conciliis, Liber Secundis: Qui est de Conciliorum Auctoritate.
The quote
- and the context in which it appears - can be found in chapter 17, entitled Summum Pontificem absolute esse supra
Concilium, with the quote in bold. The English translation is courtesy of
Mr. Edwin Woodruff Tait (to whom I owe a lot and would like to express sincere
gratitude); his remarks within the text are enclosed in brackets.
Tertia Prepositio. << Summus Pontifex simpliciter et absolute est
supra Ecclesiam universam, et supra Concilium generale, ita ut nullum in terris
supra se judicium agnoscat. >> Haec etiam est fere de fide; et probatur primo ex
duabus praecedentibus: nam si Papa est caput Ecclesiae universae, etiam simul
congregatae, et Ecclesia universa etiam simul congregata non habet ullam
potestatem ratione suae totalitatis; sequitur Papam supra Concilium esse, et
supra Ecclesiam, non contra.
Secunde probatur ratione, in Scripturis
fundata; nam omnia nomina, quae in Scripturis tribuuntur Christo, unde constat
eum esse supra Ecclesiam, eadem omnia tribuuntur Pontifici. Ac primum,
Christ est paterfamilias in domo sua, quae est Ecclesia, Pontifex in eadem est
summus oeconomus, id est, paterfamilias loco Christi, Lucae XII: Quis est fidelis dispensator, et prudens,
quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam, etc. Hic enim per
dispensatorem, sive oeconomum, ut Graece habetur, intelligunt Episcopum.
Ambrosius in hunc locum, et Hilarius, et Hieronymus in cap. XXIV Matth. ubi
similis habetur sententia. Et quamvis Patres non loquantur expresse de Episcopo
Romano, tamen sine dubio sententia Scripturae illa est; ut Episcopi
particulares sunt summi oeconomi in suis Ecclesiis, ita esse Episcopum Romanum
in Ecclesia universa. Unde Ambrosius in illud I. Tim. III.: Ut scias quomodo te oporteat conversari in
domo Dei etc. << Domus Dei, inquit, Ecclesia dicitur, cujus hodie rector
est Damasus. >> Et Chrysostomus lib. II De Sacerdotio circa initium, hunc ipsum locum: Quis est fidelis servus, etc. de Petro exponit.
Quod autem oeconomus summus sit supra familiam, et ab ea judicari, ac puniri
non possit, patet ex hoc eodem loco, Dominus enim ait: Quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam. Et ibidem: Quod si dixerit servus ille in corde suo,
moram facit Dominus meus venire et coeperit percutere servos, et ancillas,
edere, et bibere, et inebriari, veniet Dominus servi illius in die, qua non
sperat, et dividet eum, partemque ejus cum infidelibus ponet. Ubi vides
Dominum servare suo judicio servum illum, et non committere judicio familiae.
Idem etiam docet usus omnium familiarum; nulla enim familia est, in qua liceat
inferioribus famulis etiam simul congregatis punire, vel expellere oeconomum,
etiamsi pessimus sit, id enim ad solum Dominum totius familiae pertinet.
Alterum nomen Christi est Pastor, Joannis X: Ego sum pastor bonus, etc. Idem
communicat Petro, Joan. ult., Pasce oves meas. Constat autem pastorem ita
praeese ovibus, ut nullo modo ab eis judicari possit.
Tertium est, Caput corporis Ecclesiae, Ephes. IV idem communicat Petro, ut
habemus in Concilio Chalcedonsi, act. 3. ubi legati sententiam pronuntiant in
Dioscorum, et in epist. Concilii ad Leonem. Porro caput a membris regi, et non
ea potius regere, contra naturam est, sicut etiam est contra naturam, quod
membra sibi caput praecidant, cum forte graviter aegrotat.
Quartum est, Vir, seu sponsus, Ephes. V: Viri diligite uxores vestras, sicut et
Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et seipsum tradidit pro ea, etc. Idem convenit
Petro, nam in Concilio general Lugdunensi, ut habetur cap. Ubi periculum, de
elect. in 6. loquens Concilium de electione Romani Pontificis: << Acceleret, inquit, utilis per necessaria
totius mundi provisio; idoneo celeriter eidem Ecclesiae sponso dato. >>
Est autem contra Apostolum Ephes. V et contra naturae ordinem, ut sponsa
praesit sponso, et non potius subsit.
_________________________________________
Third proposition: “The Supreme Pontiff
is simply and absolutely over the universal Church, and over a general Council, so that
he recognizes no judicial authority on earth over himself.” This is almost de fide, [necessary to be
believed as a dogma of the faith] and is proved first of all from the two
preceding points: for if the Pope is the head of the universal Church, even
when it is gathered together at one time, and if the universal Church even
gathered together at one time has no power by reason of its totality;[1] it
follows that the Pope is over the Council, and over the Church, not the other
way around.
It is proved by the second reason, based
in Scripture: for all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from which it
is determined that he is over the Church—those same names are ascribed to the
Pontiff. [2] And first, Christ is the paterfamilias [male
head of the household] in his own house, which is the Church. The Pope is the
highest steward in the same house, that is, the household head in Christ’s
place: Luke 12: “Who is the faithful and
prudent dispenser, whom the Lord has set over his household, etc.” Here by
“dispenser,” or “steward” [oeconomus], as the Greek
has it, they [the Fathers?] understand the Bishop. See Ambrose commenting on
this passage, and Hilary, and Jerome in chap. 24 of Matthew where there is a
similar statement. And although the Fathers do not speak expressly about the
Roman Bishop, nonetheless that passage of Scripture undoubtedly means: as the
particular Bishops are highest stewards in their Churches, so the Bishop of
Rome is in the universal Church. Whence Ambrose on that passage of 1 Timothy 3:
“That you may know how you ought to act
in the house of God,” etc, says: “The house of God, he says, is called the
Church, whose ruler today is Damasus.” [Damasus, as you no doubt know, was
the Pope in Ambrose’s day.] And Chrysostom in book 2 of On the
Priesthood around the beginning, talking about this same passage: “Who is a faithful slave,” etc., expounds
it as being about Peter.
But that the highest steward is over the household, and cannot be judged or
punished by it, is evident from this same passage. For the Lord says: “Whom the Lord has established over his
household.” And in the same place: “If
that slave should say in his heart, ‘My Lord is delaying his coming,’ and
should begin to beat the slaves and the maids, to eat, to drink, and to get
drunk, then the Lord of that slave will come in a day in which he is not
looking, and will cut him up and allot his inheritance among the unfaithful.”
(Luke 12:45-46) Here you see that the Lord preserves that slave for his own
judgment, and does not hand him over to the judgment of the household. The
custom of all households teaches the same thing; for there is no household in
which it is allowed for the inferior members of the household (even gathered
together at one time) to punish or expel the steward, even if he should be a
really bad one—for that pertains only to the Lord of the whole household.
Another name of Christ is “Shepherd”
[Pastor]. John 10: “I am the good
shepherd,” etc. He shares this title [literally “communicates the same
thing”] with Peter in the last chapter of John: Feed my sheep. He thus establishes that the shepherd is over the
sheep, so that in no way he can be judged by them.
The third is: “Head of the body of the
Church,” Eph. 4. He shares this title with Peter, as we find in the third act of the
Council of Chalcedon, where the legates pronounce sentence on Dioscorus,
and in the letter of the Council to Leo. Further it is against nature for the
head to be ruled by the members and not rather to rule them, just as it is
against nature that the members should cut off their own head, even if it
should perhaps be gravely sick.
The fourth is “Husband,” or “spouse,” Eph. 5: “Husbands love your wives, just as also Christ loved the Church, and
handed himself over for her,” etc. This same title applies to Peter, for in
the general Council of Lyons, chapter 6 “Ubi periculum” [Where
there is danger] regarding election, the Council says with regard to the
election of the Roman Pontiff: “Let the useful and most necessary provision be
hastened on the part of the whole world; thus may a spouse be given quickly to
the Church.” But it is against the Apostle (Eph. 5) and against the order of
nature, that the wife should be over the husband, and not rather be subject.
[1] I’ve
translated this in a woodenly literal way, because without the previous section
I can’t be sure what he means. I think he’s saying that the whole Church can’t
have authority over itself.
[2] I’ve translated this “all the names, ascribed to Christ in Scripture, from
which” rather than “all the names which are ascribed to Christ in Scripture,
whence” in order to make it clear that Bellarmine is talking about a particular
category of names. He is not saying
without qualification that we can say anything about the Pope that we say about
Christ. He’s talking about the names of Christ that indicate His authority over
the Church.
Note
the difference between what Bellarmine actually says when his quote is in its
proper context. Far from claiming that the Pope is God, Bellarmine is here
emphasizing how the Pope occupies the highest rank in the Church as its "high
steward" and "shepherd" representing the pater-familias and the Good Shepherd, our Lord Jesus. Also, take
notice how a single translation can change the whole meaning.
I REMEMBER THE DAYS WHEN ONLY BRO. CENON, BRO. MARS AND ME AND FEW OTHERE WERE DOING APOLOGETICS ONLINE ACTIVELY ALMOST ON DAILY BASIS. WE WERE OUTNUMBERED BUT OUR FAITH STOOD STRONG LIKE THE LION OF JUDAH.
THE ENEMIES TAUGHT WE ARE WEAK BECAUSE WE ARE LAMBS BUT THEY FORGET THE FACT THAT OUR LEADER IS THAT LION OF JUDAH. WE MIGHT BE WOUNDED AND BE KILLED BUT WE SHALL RISE AGAIN. WE MIGHT GET TIRED AND BE WEAKENED BUT WE SHALL BE RE-ENERGIZED BY THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. WE CAN BE DEFEATED BUT REMAIN UNBOWED AND DEFIANT. LIKE CEDARS WE SHALL STAND AND LIKE EAGLES WE SHALL FLY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT OUR REDEEMER LIVES AND THAT HE CARRIES US ON HIS WINGS.
THEY STABBED US TREACHEROUSLY BUT SOON WE SHALL RISE FROM THE ASHES OF THE BATTLEGROUND BETTER AND STRONGER. THE SPEED OF THEIR TREACHERY SHALL BE RETURNED TO WITH THE SWIFTNESS OF OUR RETURN.
VIVA EL CRISTO REY Y NSTRA. SNRA. DEL STO. ROSARIO. VIVA LA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA APOSTOLICA ROMANA!