ENCÍCLICA
QUARTA SUPRA
PAPA PIO IX
PAPA PIO IX
SOBRE A IGREJA
NA ARMÊNIA
To Our Venerable Brothers Anthony Peter IX,
Patriarch of Cilicia, and the Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy and Laity, Our
Beloved Children of the Armenian Rite Who are in Loving Communion with the
Apostolic See. Venerable Brothers and Beloved Children, We give you Greetings
and Our Apostolic Blessing.
Four and twenty years have now gone by since
We addressed Our Apostolic letter to the men of the East (ad Orientales)[1] at
this most holy season in which a new star shone forth in the East to enlighten
the nations. We wrote that letter to strengthen Catholics in the faith and to
call back to the one fold of Christ those who were unhappily outside the
Catholic Church. We entertained a joyous and vivid hope that with the help of
God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the purity of the Christian faith would be spread
abroad and the zeal for ecclesiastical discipline flourish once again in the
East. We promised to support with Our authority the establishment of this
discipline in accordance with the sacred canons. Our great concern for the men
of the East and the kindness and charity which We have shown them since that
time are known to God. But all men too know what We took on Ourselves to
achieve this purpose--if only all men correctly understood this as well!
However by the mysterious judgment of God, these affairs have developed far
differently from Our hopes and desires, and far from rejoicing, We must rather
grieve and lament a new disaster which is afflicting some of the Eastern
Churches.
Schism in
Constantinople
2. Long ago
Christ warned that many would come in His name, stating that they were the
Christ, and as a result, seduce many;[2] this has proved true. For by means of
the new schism which arose three years ago among the Armenians in
Constantinople, the common enemy of the human race is wholly engaged in
undermining faith, destroying truth and disrupting unity by worldly wisdom,
heretical discussion, subtle, clever deceit, and even, where possible, by the
use of force. While exposing the pretenses and plots of this enemy, St. Cyprian
lamented that "he snatches human beings out of the very church and while
they think they have already drawn near to the light and escaped from the night
of the world, he brings darkness over them once more in ways of which they are
unaware. Thus, although they do not observe Christ's gospel and His law, they
call themselves Christians and judge that they possess the light while they
walk in darkness, attracted and deceived by the adversary. For he transfigures
himself like an angel of light, as the Apostle says (2 Cor 11.14) and disguises
his ministers as ministers of justice who present night as day, ruin as
salvation, hopelessness in the guise of hope, faithlessness under the pretext
of faith, the antichrist with the title of "Christ." Thus while
telling lies which resemble truths, they make vain the truth by their
subtlety."[3] 3. The beginnings of this new schism were, as is usually the
case, complicated by many contributory factors. However, We observed its
wickedness and its dangers beforehand, and resisted it at once in two Apostolic
letters, one February 24, 1870, Non sine gravissimo, and the other on May 20 in
the same year, Quo impensiore.[4] The affair has gone so far, however, that
despite the urging, warnings and censures of this Apostolic See, the
originators of this schism and their adherents have fearlessly chosen for
themselves a false patriarch. We have declared in Our letter of 11 March 1871,
Ubi prima,[5] that this election is wholly invalid and schismatic, and that the
man elected and those who elected him have incurred canonical penalties.
Furthermore, they have taken possession of Catholic churches by violent means:
they have forced the lawful Patriarch, Our venerable brother Anthony Peter IX,
to depart from the territories of the Ottoman Empire; they have even seized
with military aid the patriarchal see of Cilicia which is in Lebanon; and
having won the civil command of this province, they have assailed the Catholic
people of Armenia, and are trying by every means to detach them from their
communion with and obedience to the Apostolic See. John Kupelian, one of the
neo-schismatic priests, is working vigorously to ensure that the affair
proceeds according to their plan. By Our authority, this man has previously
been publicly and specifically excommunicated and declared cut off from the
Catholic Church by the Apostolic delegate for Mesopotamia and other districts,
Our venerable brother Nicholas Archbishop of Mardin; the specific charge was
encouraging disorder and fomenting schism in the state of Diarbekr or Amida.
After being sacrilegiously consecrated as bishop by the pseudo- patriarch, and
having gained power, he now attempts by argument and by open threats to bring
the Catholics of the Armenian rite under his rule. If this should ever come
about, the Catholics would be quite reduced to their wretched state of
forty-two years ago when they were subjected to the power of the old
schismatics of their rite.
Appeal to the
Ottoman Emperor
4. We have
indeed left no means untried in order to free you from this great evil. In this
We follow the custom of Our predecessors whose authority, protection and help
has usually been requested at such critical junctures by all the respected
bishops and fathers of the Eastern Churches. To this end also We have sent an
extraordinary legate to that region. We recently asked the supreme Ottoman
emperor himself in a special letter that the losses suffered by Armenian
Catholics be made good by process of law, and that their exiled shepherd be
restored to his flock. But the fulfillment of Our wishes has been hindered by
those men who call themselves Catholics, but are the enemies of the Cross of
Christ.
Warning from
the Holy See
5. We must now
greatly fear that the originators of the new schism and their adherents may
succeed in their plan of seducing both the weak in faith and the less prudent
Catholics of the Armenian and other rites, leading them off on the path of
perdition. Therefore We are compelled to address you again, and by dispelling
that darkness and thick mist which, conceals the truth, to warn all men. It is
Our duty to strengthen those who stand firm, to support the wavering, and also
to recall to goodness, those men who have wretchedly abandoned the truth and
Catholic unity, if only, they are willing to listen. 6. The chief deceit used
to conceal the new schism is the name of "Catholic." The originators
and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their
condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of
heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their
many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error. St. Jerome,
presbyter, referred to these men, among others, when he said: "The
heretics are accustomed to say to their king or to Pharaoh, 'We are the sons of
wise men who have handed down to us from the beginning the Apostolic teaching;
we are the sons of ancient kings who are called kings of the philosophers; and
we possess the knowledge of the scriptures in addition to the wisdom of the
world.'"[6]
7. But to prove
that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a
declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist
disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been
possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith
which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not
to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must
be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness. 8. That
the statement of faith which they published was deceitful and sophistical is
proved also by the fact that they rejected the declaration or profession of
faith which was proposed to them on Our authority in accordance with custom.
They were commanded to accept it by Our venerable brother Anthony Joseph
Archbishop of Tyana, Apostolic Delegate at Constantinople, in a letter of
warning sent to them on September 29 of the same year. For any man to be able
to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be
able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and
with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree.[7] And the man who
abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the
Church.[8] As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who
establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter[9] from
which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.[10]
Authority of
the Papacy
9. This fact
was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the
Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city
affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, "We follow and obey the
Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with
it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by
it."[11] Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis,
and a confessor of the faith, in refer ring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite,
declared: "If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he toes
not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive
and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the
chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men
will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before
all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join
in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks
that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied
and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word
of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy
councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power
of binding and loosing for all God's holy churches in the entire
world."[12] For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly
declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later--"that the
names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that
is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to
be read out during the sacred mysteries."[13] This plainly meant that they
did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate
that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly
admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. 10.
Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of
heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and
excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the
Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of
strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept
the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their
ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the
ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world
knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again
what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the
whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment."[14] The Jansenist
heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by
a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should
perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our
predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against
the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind.[15] These
statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif's which
had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V. Through
human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate.
But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned,
"for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not
to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not
exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated
reproof."[16] But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation
by one's bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for
rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as
they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the
Church? 11. The charity which obliges priests in particular to attend to the
faithful should derive "from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith
unfeigned"[17] as the Apostle warned. In reviewing the qualities which we
ought to display as ministers of God, he also included "in charity
unfeigned, in the word of truth."[18] But Christ Himself, however, the God
who "is charity,"[19] openly declared that those who do not listen to
the Church should be regarded as gentiles and publicans.[20] And Our
predecessor St. Gelasius answered Euphemius, Bishop of Constantinople, when he
stated that "the flock ought to follow the shepherd who calls them back to
safe pastures, rather than the shepherd follow the flock as it wanders off the
road."[21] For "the people must be taught, not followed: and if they
do not know, we must impress on them what is permitted and not permitted,
rather than give them our approval."[22]
Definition of a Schismatic
Definition of a Schismatic
12. But the
neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so
the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object.
Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867,[23] answers this
objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this
evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who
obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the
chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even
deny their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are
schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic
authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and
the flock following its shepherd.[24] Consequently the bishop is in the Church
and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the
Church. Further more, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter
condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France,[25] discipline is
often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its
purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut
off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.
Authority of
the Holy See
13. But the
neo-schismatics have gone further, since "every schism fabricates a heresy
for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church."[26] Indeed they
have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits
of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be
observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve
communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic
power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not
just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was
determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always
considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council
of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in
their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo
confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned
discipline. 14. Indeed, "the successor of blessed Peter, by the very fact
that he is such, has been assigned the whole flock of Christ, so that together
with his bishopric he receives the power of universal rule. Then the other
bishops must be assigned their portions of the flock so that they can rule over
their flock."[27] If the supreme authority of this assignment to blessed
Peter and his successors is rejected, the very foundations and prerogatives of
the patriarchal churches in particular would be shaken. "Even if Christ
willed that Peter and the other leaders have something in common, the other
leaders have this only through Peter."[28] "And in fact Peter himself
honored the See (of Alexandria) when he sent his disciple, the evangelist: he
strengthened the See (of Antioch) which he occupied for seven years, even
though he was going to leave it."[29] And both Anatolius,[30] Bishop of
Constantinople, and Marcian,[31] the emperor, openly acknowledged that the
approval and confirmation of the Apostolic See was altogether necessary to the
decrees of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the see of Constantinople. 15.
Accordingly, then, unless they abandon the unchanging and unbroken tradition of
the Church which is so clearly confirmed by testimonies of the Fathers, the
neo-schismatics can in no way convince themselves that they are Catholics even
if they declare themselves such. If We did not thoroughly know the clever and
subtle deceits of heretics, it would be incomprehensible that the Ottoman
regime still regards as Catholics people it knows to be cut off from the
Catholic Church by Our judgment and authority. For if the Catholic religion is
to continue safe and free in the Ottoman dominion as the Emperor has decreed,
then the essence of this religion should also be allowed, for instance the
primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Most men feel that the Church's
supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.
False
Accusations
16. But the neo
schismatics declare that they do not oppose the Catholic Church's principles in
the least. Their sole aim is to protect the rights of their churches and their
nation and even the rights of their supreme Emperor; they falsely allege that
We have infringed these rights. By this means, they fearlessly make us
responsible for the present disorder. Exactly in this way did the Acacian
schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius.[32] And previously the
Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor
Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.[33] For as the same holy
Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, "a
frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall
them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and
condemn their own harmful desires." These appear to be the main grounds on
which the neo-schismatics gain their support and solicit the patronage of
powerful men for their cause, most wicked as it is. Lest the faithful be led
into error, We must deal with these grounds more fully than if We merely had to
refute unjust accusations. 17. We do not wish to recall that after the schism
succeeded, the fortunes of the Eastern Catholic Churches declined; then God
overthrew the empire of the Greeks in punishment for the sundered unity of His
Church. Neither do We desire to recall the energetic efforts of Our
predecessors, as soon as it was possible, to call back the straying sheep to
the one true flock of Christ the Lord. But even if the results did not fully
match the efforts expended, still by God's mercy some churches of the different
rites did return to the truth and Catholic unity of the Church. These the
Apostolic See received in its arms like newborn infants and took particular
care to strengthen them in the true Catholic faith and to keep them completely
free from all stain of heresy.
Schism at the
Time of Pius VII
18. When it was
reported that the evil doctrines of a sect that Pope Pius VII had already
condemned were being spread in the East, Pius VII became alarmed. Because they
were trying to suppress the primacy of papal jurisdiction, the Pope decided on
immediate measures to prevent their futile ambiguities and contentions from
deceiving the faithful. Accordingly he ordered the ancient formula of St.
Hormisdas, Our predecessor, to be sent to the patriarchs and eastern
bishops.[34] In addition he commanded each within his jurisdiction to have
every present or future clergyman subscribe to the profession of faith
prescribed for men of the East by Urban VIII, unless they had already done so.
Continuation of
Schisms
19. However
soon afterwards, in the year 1806, the so-called Antioch Synod met at the
monastery of Carcapha in the diocese of Beirut. The Pistoian Synod, which had
already been condemned, quietly and deceitfully influenced the synod in many
matters. This synod reproduced several statements, in part verbatim and in part
ambiguously expressed, even though these had been condemned by the holy Roman
See. Still other statements smacked of Baianism and Jansenism, and disturbed
the position of the Church by their opposition to ecclesiastical power, sound
doctrine and the approved discipline of the Church. This Synod of Carcapha
published its decrees in Arabic in 1810 without reference to the Apostolic See;
as a result, it occasioned complaints from many bishops and was finally
censured and condemned in an Apostolic letter by Gregory XVI.[35] He bade the
bishops derive the norm of their rule and teaching from the other ancient
councils long approved by the Apostolic See. If only the errors in which it
abounded had come to an end when the synod was condemned! But such wicked
teachings did not cease to creep secretly throughout the East, waiting for the
right moment to emerge into common view. Despite an unsuccessful attempt about
twenty years ago, the new Armenian schismatics have now daringly brought this
about.
Catholicism in
Constantinople
20. But since
discipline is the rampart of faith, the Apostolic See needed to restore
discipline. It has certainly never abandoned this most serious duty even in
adverse times when it could attend only to transitory needs while it awaited
more the favorable times. The Ottoman emperor, at the insistence of Leo XII and
Pius VIII, and relying on the support of the Catholic rulers of Austria and
France, recognized the distinction which exists between Catholics and heretics;
therefore, he removed Catholics from the civil power of the latter, decreeing
that Catholics should have their own head or prefect. It was only then in
Constantinople that bishops of the Armenian rite could safely exercise the
authority of an ordinary, to raise Catholic churches of the same rite, and to
profess and practice openly the Catholic religion. Accordingly Pius VIII set up
at Constantinople the see of the primate and archbishop of the Armenians;[36]
the Pope was eager that canonical discipline should thrive there in a suitable
and timely manner.
21. After some
years, as soon as it was clearly expedient, We set up episcopal sees subject to
the primate at Constantinople and also prescribed the procedure to be observed
for the election of bishops.[37] Finally in an imperial document issued on
April 7, 1857, to Our venerable brother Anthony Hassoun, then the primate of
that see, provision was made on the authority of the supreme Emperor of the
Ottoman Empire to prevent the power of the civil Prefect, as he is called, from
being exercised in religious affairs, which would be completely at variance
with the laws of the Catholic Church. The Armenians themselves requested that
We unite the primatial church at Constantinople to the patriarchal see of
Cilicia; We did this and We abrogated the title of the former by Our Apostolic
letter Reversurus. Then We decided that it was both timely and necessary to
sanction certain chief points of discipline by the authority of the same
Constitution. We commanded by Our Apostolic letter Commissum of July 12,
1867[38] that a patriarchal synod be held as soon as possible in order to
carefully ensure that an exact order of discipline be correctly established in
the whole Armenian patriarchate.
22. But an
enemy proceeded to sow weeds in the Armenian church at Constantinople when
shortly afterwards some men raised the question about the civil prefecture of
the Armenian community, which they complained had been stolen by the new
Patriarch. A serious disturbance soon followed this controversy: the same
Patriarch was accused of betraying the rights of the state in accepting Our
previously mentioned Constitution as a Catholic bishop was bound to do. In this
way at last all the plans, artifices, and abuse of the dissidents have come to
bear on this particular Constitution.
23. In this
affair two points in particular have been called criminal: that is, the decrees
concerning the election of holy bishops and the administration of the Church's
property. For it has been falsely asserted that these are opposed to the
national laws and the laws of the supreme Emperor. Although Our prescription on
each of these headings ought to be very well known, it is well to repeat them
at this point. For many speak as if they understand in spite of their ignorance
of what is in Our prescriptions[39] and others, like soothsayers and
interpreters of dreams, judge what they do not know.[40]
Selection of
Hierarchy
24. We
commanded that a synod composed exclusively of bishops elect the patriarch.
However, We forbade the man elected to be enthroned until he received a letter
of confirmation from the Apostolic See. We ordered bishops to be elected in the
following way: all the bishops of the province were to gather in a synod and
recommend three suitable churchmen to the Apostolic See. If it were not
possible for all the bishops to come to the synod, the recommendation could be
made by a synod of at least three diocesan bishops together with the patriarch,
if those absent indicated their triple recommendation in writing. When this is
done, the Roman pontiff will choose one of those recommended and put him in
charge of the vacant see. We declared that We were certain that the bishops
would recommend worthy and suitable men so that We would never have to select
someone different from those recommended to be in charge of the vacant see.
25. If you
consider these measures with a mind free from the passions of faction, you will
find them all sanctioned by the universal sense of the canons. Concerning the
exclusion of the laity from the election of bishops, a clear distinction must
be made, lest a doctrine at variance with the Catholic faith result. This
distinction is between the right to elect bishops and the ability to give
testimony as to their life and morals. The former claim must be credited to the
wrong notions of Luther and Calvin, who even asserted that it was a matter of
divine law that the bishops should be elected by the people; as everybody
realizes, such false teaching has been and is still rejected by the Catholic
Church. For no power of electing bishops or other ministers of religion has
ever been given to the people by either divine or ecclesiastical law.
26. Testimony
of the people concerning the life and morals of those who are to be raised to
the episcopate became important "when the Arians, to whom the emperor
Constantius was partial, began to eject Catholic prelates from their sees and
replace them with adherents of Arianism, as St. Athanasius laments (History of
the Arians, ch. 4). The people felt that if they were present and if their
testimony were heard at the election of bishops, then they would be more likely
to support and help them."[41] That custom indeed lasted for some time in
the Church, but when recurrent discord, disturbance, and other abuses resulted
from it, it was necessary to remove the people from the process. For as St.
Jerome observes, "sometimes the judgment of the ordinary people is wrong
and in approving of priests each man is partial to his own ways and seeks a
superior who resembles himself rather than one who is good."[42] 27. Nevertheless,
in imposing a procedure of election, We left the synod of bishops freedom to
examine the talents of the men to be elected in whatever way they preferred,
even to the extent of summoning the testimony of the people if they so chose.
And in fact, since the publication of Our Constitution, such an examination was
conducted three years ago by the Armenian prelates when a bishop was elected
for the districts of Sebaste and Tokat. The proceedings sent to this Holy See
testify to this. However We did not nor do We think it fitting to impose a
similar procedure in the election of the patriarch for several reasons. In the
first place, his rank is so high; secondly, he is in charge of all the bishops
in his district; and lastly, it is clear to Us that only bishops have taken
part in the election of the patriarch in each of the Eastern rites, except on
particular and extraordinary occasions when circumstances demanded a different
procedure. For instance, when the Catholics were protecting themselves against the
strong power of the schismatics to whom they were subjected, they asked for a
different patriarch for themselves. By this fact they ensured their separation
from these schismatics and their true and sincere "conversion" to the
Catholic faith as indeed happened when Abraham Peter I was elected. 28.
However, some resent and bemoan both Our declaration that this Apostolic See
has the right and power to elect a bishop either from the three names
recommended or apart from them and Our prohibition against the enthronement of
an elected Patriarch without Our prior confirmation. They call Our attention to
the customs and canons of their churches as if We had abandoned the provisions
of the sacred canons. We might respond to these men in the same way Our predecessor
St. Gelasius did when the Acacian schismatics brought the same false accusation
against him: "They cite the canons against Us without knowing what they
are saying since they show that they are themselves in opposition to the canons
by the very fact that they deny obedience to the first See although its advice
is sound and correct."[43] For these are the very canons which recognize
the full, divine authority of blessed Peter over the whole Church. Indeed, they
proclaim that he lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present
time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed.[44] Rightly then did
Stephan, Bishop of Larissa, give this firm answer to those who considered that
the privileges of the churches of Constantinople were somewhat diminished by
the intervention of the Roman Pontiff: "the authority of the Apostolic See
which was given by God and our Savior to the chief of the Apostles exceeds the
privileges of all the holy churches. In acknowledging this, all the churches of
the world should cease their opposition."[45] 29. Certainly, if you recall
the history of your districts, you will find examples of Roman Pontiffs who
used this power when they judged it necessary for the safety of the Eastern
Churches. This was why the Roman Pontiff Agapetus used his authority to eject
Anthimus from the See of Constantinople and replace him with Mennas without
calling a synod. Our predecessor Martin I entrusted his power for the East to
John, Bishop of Philadelphia, in regard to the regions of the East. He
instructed him "by the Apostolic authority given to Us by the Lord through
the most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles,"[46] to appoint bishops,
priests and deacons in every city subject to the sees of Jerusalem and Antioch.
In more recent times, you will recall that the bishop of Mardin of the
Armenians was elected and consecrated by the authority of this Apostolic See
even though Our predecessors granted the care of this see to the patriarchs of
Cilicia. This was granted when the administration of the district of
Mesopotamia was assigned to them by the Holy See. All these actions agree with
the supreme power of the Roman See; the church of the Armenians has always
recognized, proclaimed, and respected this except during unhappy times of
schism. This is not surprising since even among your people still separated
from the Catholic faith, the ancient tradition remains strong that the great
bishop and martyr whom you regard as the Enlightener of your race, received his
power from the Apostolic See. He came to the See in person, undeterred by the
length and great hardship of the journey. This was Gregory whom Chrysostom
described as a sun rising in the eastern regions whose shining rays reached as
far as the Greek people.[47] 30. We decided on this arrangement by Ourselves
after carefully studying both on ancient and recent events. Everyone knows that
the eternal and at times the temporal happiness of people depends on the proper
election of bishops; the circumstances of time and place must be considered referring
all the authority for selecting the bishops to the Apostolic See. Still We
decided to moderate the exercise of this power by allowing the synod of bishops
to elect the patriarch and by having this synod recommend three suitable men to
Us for vacant sees as was sanctioned in Our Constitution. 31. But on this
matter too, to rouse the torpid and increasingly inspire those who are running
well, We said that We hoped truly suitable men worthy of so important an office
would be recommended to avoid the necessity of Our ever having to appoint to a
vacant See someone apart from those recommended. This was provided for also in
the procedure We established in 1853[48] for exactly the same purpose. We have
heard that some have interpreted these otherwise mild words to mean that We
would disregard and even deride the recommendations of the synod. Others have
gone even further and developed a theory that a proposal to entrust the care of
the Armenians to Latin bishops is veiled in these words. Such foolish accusations
indeed deserve no answer: for only fearful and foolish men could utter such
statements. But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to
elect a bishop apart from the three recommended candidates, in case the
Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But
even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter
would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See
by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has
the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled
to exercise by the will of God Himself. 32. Although it is now nineteen years
since these pronouncements were made to the Armenians, and although bishops
have been elected many times, We have never used that power, not even when
recently, after the publication of the Constitution Reversurus, We received a
triple recommendation from which We could not elect a bishop. In this case We
told the synod of bishops to recommence the process of recommendation in
accordance with the laws We prescribed rather than Our electing a bishop apart
from their recommendations. This has been hindered so far by the new schism
which has begun to tear apart the church of the Armenians. We are confident,
furthermore, that such distressful times will never befall the Catholic
churches of Armenia as to compel the Roman Pontiffs to impose bishops on them
who have not been recommended by the synod of bishops. 33. We will add some
remarks on Our prohibition of the enthronement of Patriarchs before Holy See.
The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never
been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of
the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal
sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors. Thus,
to pass over other names in a well known affair, Anatolius Bishop of
Constantinople (a man who certainly did not serve the Apostolic See very well),
and even Photius himself (the first cause of the Greek schism), requested the
Roman Pontiff to confirm their elections by his consent. To this end they
employed the intervention of the emperors Theodosius, Michael and Basil. For this
reason the Fathers of Chalcedon, even though they declared all the acts of the
robber synod of Ephesus invalid, willed that Maximus Bishops of Antioch remain
in the see. He had replaced Domnus by authority of that synod since "the
holy and blessed Pope who confirmed the holy and venerable Maximus as bishop of
the church of Antioch appeared to have approved his merit in a just
judgment."[49] 34. But if you consider the patriarchs of those churches
which in more recent times have renounced schism and returned to Catholic
unity, you will find that all of them asked for confirmation from the Roman
Pontiff; the Roman Pontiffs confirmed them all by letter in such a way that at
the same time the Pontiffs appointed them and placed them over their churches.
The Apostolic See has at times tolerated elected patriarchs using their power
before being confirmed by the See. It has done so because their districts were
so distant or because the journey was dangerous or because of the reverses
threatening more and more frequently from the predominance of schismatics of
the same rite. This dispensation has been granted even in the west to those who
are very far away because of the needs and benefits of the churches.[50] But it
is fair to remind you that such reasons are no longer valid since travel is
much easier and since the Catholics have been delivered from the civil power of
the schismatics by the kindness of the supreme Ottoman emperor. By following
this procedure, safe provision is made for the preservation of the Catholic
faith which could be disturbed at will by one who is unworthy of such high
office occupying the patriarchal see before the Apostolic confirmation which
might arise when an elected Patriarch is rejected by the holy Apostolic See and
has to relinquish his place will be forestalled.
35. Everything
which is sanctioned in Our Constitution contributes to the preservation and
development of the Catholic faith. It contributes as well to the protection of
the real liberty of the Church and the authority of the bishops, whose rights
and privileges find strength and repose in the stability of the Apostolic See.
The Roman Pontiffs have always strongly defended these rights and privileges
from heretics and ambitious men at the request of bishops of every rank, nation
and rite.
Ecclesiastical
Laws
36. We do not
need to give a long answer to the question of the so-called national laws. For
if it is a matter of civil laws only, the supreme ruler has the power to judge
and decide whether he deems them useful and beneficial to his subjects. But if
it is a matter of ecclesiastical laws, no one can be unaware that Catholics
have never recognized any national or popular laws against the Church, its
hierarchy and ordinations. For although peoples and nations have entered the Church
from all places, still God has united them all under the supreme shepherd
blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles. Thus there might no longer be
Gentile and Jew, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but that Christ may be
all things in all men.[51] From Him the whole body, joined and knit together by
every joint, increases bodily and builds itself up in love.[52] For God has not
given any peoples or nations power over the Church, but has entrusted them to
the Apostles for teaching and has commanded the duty of belief.[53] For this
reason too, the blessed Peter openly declared at the meeting of Apostles and
presbyters that God had decreed that the nations should hear the word of the
Gospel through him and should believe.[54]
Calumnies
against the Church
37. But it is
also said that We have infringed upon the rights of the supreme emperor. This
is a common calumny worn thin by the long use heretics have made of it. The
Jews first invented it in opposition to Christ and God; then pagans very often
used it not only before the Roman emperors and heretics, but even before
Catholic princes. I could wish they had not brought it for ward this time as
well. To counter it, St. Jerome wrote that "heretics cringe before royal
rank and often impute their own pride to kings; assuming the king did what they
do, they accuse holy men ant preachers of the faith in his presence and forbid
teachers to preach in Israel lest they act contrary to the king's will arguing
that Bethel, the 'house of God,' and the false church is the sanctuary of the
king and the temple of the kingdom."[55] It would indeed be quite enough
to trample in contemptuous silence on these shameless calumnies which are so
far removed from the teachings, habits, and practices of the Catholic faith.
But it is necessary to ensure that the simple and inexperienced do not suffer
by wrongly judging Us and the Apostolic See as a result of the statement of
ill-wishers "who in the course of attacking others attempt to increase
their vices."[56]
Ecclesiastical
Domain
38. Therefore,
the teaching of the Catholic Church received from Christ Himself, and handed on
by the holy Apostles, is that the things of Caesar must be given to Caesar, but
to God must be given the things of God. For this reason, when it was necessary,
Our predecessors never avoided impressing on princes their duty of faith and
obedience. Hence the administration of civil affairs is proper to the ruler,
but ecclesiastical affairs are entirely the concern of the priests. Among these
affairs are to be reckoned everything which is necessary to establishing and
maintaining the so-called exterior discipline of the Church. It would be
heretical to affirm that the use of this power received from God is an abuse of
the Church's authority; Pius VI already determined this.[57] The Apostolic See
has often taken great pains to maintain this distinction of powers. St.
Athanasius called the interference of secular rulers in Church affairs "a
novel spectacle" and "an invention of the Arian heresy."[58]
Other prelates openly condemned it, among them Basil of Caesarea, Gregory the
Theologian, John Chrysostom and John Damascene. The last named affirmed
publicly that "no one would persuade him that the Church is governed by
imperial edicts; it is ruled by the customs of the Fathers, both written and
unwritten."[59] For the same reason the fathers of the ecumenical Council
of Chalcedon declared publicly in the case of Photius, Bishop of Tyre, gaining
the assent even of the servants of the Emperor, that "no pragmatic (that is,
imperial decree) will be valid in opposition to the rules: let the canons of
the Fathers be binding. "And when the imperial servants inquired
"whether the holy synod wanted this to be defined in regard to all
pragmatics which were in conflict with the canons, all the bishops answered,
'All the pragmatics will come to an end: let the canons be binding, and let you
see to this.'"[60] 39. However there are two points in which it is said
that We have injured the rights of the Emperor: that is, by determining the
procedure to be observed in electing and establishing holy bishops, and by
forbidding the Patriarch to alienate Church property without informing the
Apostolic See. 40. Now, what can be said to belong more to the area of
ecclesiastical affairs than the election of bishops? We have read nowhere in
the holy writings that these could be decided by princes or by peoples. Indeed,
the Fathers of the Church, the ecumenical Councils, and the Apostolic
constitutions have always both recognized and ordered that these elections
constituted part of the Church's power. So if in the matter of establishing an
ecclesiastical shepherd, the Apostolic See should define the procedure to be
followed in conducting such elections, in what way could it be said that it has
injured the rights of the supreme emperor? The rights it exercises are those of
its own proper power, not those of another's power. The bishop has indeed a
special and venerable authority over the people entrusted to him. The civil
power need not fear it since the bishop will be no enemy to the civil power,
but will affirm the legitimate rights of the ruler they share. But if it should
turn out differently--since human beings are weak--the Apostolic See itself
would attend to a bishop who was revolting against the faith and the subjection
which is due his legitimate ruler. It need not be feared that anyone at enmity
with the legitimate ruler will slink into the episcopal office. For according
to the Church's laws, the qualities of the men being considered for promotion
are carefully examined to determine that they are endowed with the virtues
which the Apostle demands they have. The man outstanding in these virtues would
heed the precept of blessed Peter: "Be subject to every human institution
for God's sake: to the king as preeminent, to governors as sent by him to
punish evildoers and to honor the good. For this is God's will, that by doing
good, you may silence the ignorance of foolish men; as free men, do not use
freedom as a pretext for wrongdoing, but use freedom for your work as servants
of God."[61]
Combination of
Civil Duties with Ecclesiastical
41. The first
Ottoman emperor in Constantinople and his successors decided to confer civil
duty and administration on bishops and other clerics. The full and unimpaired
power of the Church in their election cannot be lessened for this reason. For
it would be improper for heavenly and spiritual matters to be of smaller regard
than earthly and civil affairs and to be their servant. But the supreme Emperor
has the right to confer civil rank and power on another, if and when he judges
this is expedient. He must, however, provide that the full and free exercise of
ecclesiastical power remain with the Catholic bishops. However, a special
document of the supreme Ottoman emperor in 1857 changed this.
False
Accusations
42. We directed
all these matters to the Ottoman court through the Archbishop of Thessalonica
when he served as Our extraordinary legate at Constantinople. Now it is clearly
time to put an end to the pain given by the repetition of these false and stale
assertions, unless our opponents are envious men and prefer to be known as more
eager for their faction than for the truth. 43. But We were astonished on
learning that We were under attack for renewing and confirming the law on the
alienation of ecclesiastical property. It was as if We wanted not only to
infringe on the imperial rights, but even to claim for Ourselves the very
property of the Armenian churches. Church property belongs to the churches and
is under their power no less certainly than civilian property belongs to
civilians. This fact is sanctioned not so much by the canons, but rather
acknowledged by each man's natural reason. In the first centuries of the
Church, the administration of this property was entrusted to the judgment and
conscience of the bishops. Subsequent councils carefully regulated it by
publishing laws to settle the method by which the administration should be
carried out and the reasons for which alienation should be allowed. In this way,
the ancient power of the bishops was limited and subservient to the prudent
judgment of synods or sometimes to that of higher prelates. But since at this
point adequate provision for the indemnity of Church property did not seem to
have been made, either because synods did not meet often enough or for other
reasons, the authority of the Apostolic See was bound to intervene. In this way
care was taken that the property of the churches would not be alienated without
the advice of the Roman Pontiffs. 44. The matter indeed was considered very
serious and necessary for the benefit of the churches; therefore, it was
settled long ago that those who were elected to cathedral, metropolitan and
even patriarchal churches should be obliged under solemn oath to observe this
law. This oath was in fact taken also by the patriarchs of the Eastern rite in
so far as their subsistence property was concerned ever since their churches
returned to Catholic truth and unity. This is witnessed by the documents which
are in Our Apostolic archives. Not even one of them declined to promise under
oath that he would observe the aforesaid laws. The same oath is, and has been,
taken daily by bishops of the Latin rite no matter what their nation, kingdom,
or state, without the civil powers ever complaining that their rights were
being injured by this action. And rightly so, for by these laws the Roman
Pontiff does not claim or take anything for himself, but is concerned only with
the benefit of the churches. This includes settling what a bishop should best
do in particular cases by comparing counsels, or giving the bishop himself the
power of determining what is best concerning a father's dealings with his sons.
We had the most serious reasons, of which We will have to give an account to God,
when We determined in Our Constitution that the law to which the Patriarchs
were already subject, by which they were forbidden to alienate their
subsistence property without the advice of the Apostolic See, should be
extended to include other ecclesiastical property. Our Constitution ensures
that safer and more effective measures children, We have decided in the present
crisis to write all this to you to arouse your pure mind to the duty We have
laid upon you. For you see that what the holy Apostles long ago foretold is
still being fulfilled in your days, namely that in the last days, deceivers
would come to deceive, walking according to their own passions. Be zealous then
not to be won over from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a
different gospel. They do indeed wish to change the gospel of Christ by
attempting to remove the foundation laid for His Church by Christ. Also, they
either deny or reduce the universal task of feeding the sheep and the lambs
which was entrusted to blessed Peter in the gospel. Indubitably, "these
things are permitted and borne by the Lord, since the free decision of each
individual will is assured, in order that while the testing of the truth
exercises your hearts and minds, the unimpaired faith of the approved way may
shine with clear light."[64] Still you should avoid those who grow daily
worse, as the Apostle commanded. And you should continue to receive no one in
your gathering under any pretext who holds communion with such men that you may
preserve the Catholic faith unsullied in your hearts. 50. "But let no one
try to trick you by saying that 'the controversy is not about religion but
about customs,' as the ancient schismatics did, or that the Apostolic See is
not dealing with the cause of Catholic communion and faith but is simply pained
by the insult of being apparently despised by its critics since the dissidents
do not rest from scattering such statements as these to deceive all the
simple-minded."[65] For it is already clear from their declarations and published
writings that they are openly assailing the primacy of jurisdiction given by
Christ the Lord to this apostolic See in the person of blessed Peter; they do
this when they attack the right of exercising this jurisdiction in the Churches
of the Eastern rite. But Our Constitution could not be the cause of this error,
although it has served as an opportunity and pretext for restless or
inexperienced minds to bring it forth. "The Apostolic See, far from being
grieved by insult, defends the faith and pure communion. It does this so that
today, if all who have rebelled return in heartfelt sorrow to the fullness of
faith and Catholic communion, it will receive them with love and full charity,
following the regulations of the Fathers."[66] We have now long and fervently
besought God in the humility of Our heart to deign to grant this favor. We
desire and wish you also to do likewise. 51. For the rest, venerable brothers
and beloved children, be strengthened in the Lord and the power of His might;
receive the armor of God to enable you to stand fast in the evil day and take
up the shield of faith in every affair; do not reckon your life more valuable
than yourselves. Remember your ancestors who had no fear of suffering exile,
imprisonment, and even death itself as they purposed to keep for themselves and
you the unique gift of the true Catholic faith. For they rightly knew that not
those who kill the body need be feared, but the one who is able to destroy body
and soul in hell. Consequently cast all your concern on God: for He has care of
you and will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability. You will then
rejoice that, at this time, you were somewhat saddened by different temptations
so that your faith, more valuable than gold which is tested by fire, should on testing
be found to merit praise, glory, and honor in the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Finally We beseech you all to strive for perfect concord in your concern to
preserve the unity of faith in the bond of peace. And may the peace of God
which surpasses all understanding, maintain your hearts and minds in Christ
Jesus Our Lord. In His name and by His authority We lovingly impart Our
Apostolic Blessing to you, venerable brothers and beloved sons, as you continue
in communion with the obedience to the Apostolic See. Given at Rome in St.
Peter's on the 6th of January 1873, the 27th year of Our Pontificate.
REFERENCES: For
the Acta of the Holy See in relation to the Armenian schism see the Acta
Sanctae Sedis, vol. 5, pp. 444ff., 500ff., and 572; vol. 6, pp. 273ff. See also
the Acta of the Sacred Consistory, vol. 3, pp. 337ff., and p. 386 for the
famous bull Reversurus, and p. 394 for the apostolic letter Commissum. See also
vol. 5, pp. 376, 380, and 615 for statutes of the Babylonian Patriarchate of
the Chaldaeans passed after the bull Reversurus. 1. In suprema, 6 January 1848
(Acta Pii IX, vol. 1, p. 78).
2. Mt 24.5.
3. Lib. de
Unit, no. 3.
4. Acta Pii IX,
vol. 5, pp. 129 and 195.
5. Ibid., p.
290. 6. Comment. in Isaiae 19.12-13. 7. St. Irenaeus, Contr. haeres., bk. 3,
chap. 3. 8. St. Cyprian, Lib. de Unitate, no. 4. 9. St. Optatus of Milevis, de
schism. Donatist, bk. 2. 10. Council of Aquileia and St. Ambrose, epistle 11 to
the emperors. 11. Labbe, Collect. Council., publ. Venice, vol. 7, cod. 1279.
12. Epistle Ad Petrum illustrem, Coll. Counc., vol. 6, col. 1520. 13. Libell.
of John, bishop of Constantinople to St. Hormisdas. Eighth Ecumenical Council,
prop. I. 14. St. Gelasius, epistle 26, sect. 5, to the bishops of Dardania. 15.
Const. Unigenitus, prop. 91, 92, 93. 16. Hom. 26 on the Gospels, sect. 6. 17. I
Tm 1.5. 18. 2 Cor 6.6. 19. 1 Jn 4.8. 20. Mt 18.17. 21. Epistle 3, no. 15 to
Euphemius. 22. St. Celestine, Pope, to the bishops of Apulia and Calabria, no.
3. 23. Acta Pii IX, vol. 4, p. 304. 24. St. Cyprian, epistle 66 to Florentius
Pupianus, no. 8. 25. Quod aliquantum, 10 March 1791. 26. St. Jerome on the
epistle to Titus 3.10-11. 27. Pius VI in his brev. Super soliditate, 28
November 1786. 28. St. Leo, serm. 3 on he anniversary of his elevation. 29. St.
Gregory the Great, bk. 7, epistle 40 to Eulogius bishop of Alexandria. 30.
Anatolius to St. Leo, epistle 132, no. 4. 31. Marcian to St. Leo, epistle 100.
32. St. Gelasius epistle 12 to the emperor Anastasius, no. 1. 33. St. Athanas.,
hist. Arianor ad Monach., no. 35. 34. Encyclical of the Sacred Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith, 6 July 1803. 35. Gregory XVI, apostolic letter
Melchitarum catholicorum, 16 September 1835. 36. Apostolic letter Quod iamdiu,
6 July 1830. 37. Apostolic letter Universis Dominici gregis, 30 April 1850. 38.
Acta Pius, vol. 4, p.318. 39. Eph 4.17-18. 40. Prv 23.7. 41. Pius VI, apostolic
letter contr. civilem cleri constitutionem, 10 March 1791. 42. Advers.
Iovinian, bk. 1, no. 34. 43. In Commonit. ad Faustum, no. 5. 44. Ecumenical
Council of Ephesus, Act. 3. 45. Stephen, Bishop of Larissa, in Libell. to
Boniface 11 and the Roman Synod in 531. 46. Epistle to John of Philadelphia in
Labbe, Collect. Counc., tom. 7, col. 22. 47. Encomium of St. Gregory,
Enlightener of the Armenians, from the Armenian homilies in the Opera of St.
John Chrysostom, Paris, 1864, vol. 12, col. 943. 48. Instruction Licet. 20
August 1853. 49. Council of Chalcedon, Ac . 10. 50. Lateran Council IV, canon
26.
51. Col 3.11.
52. Eph 4.16.
53. Mt 28.19.
54. Acts 15.7.
55. Comment. on
Amos 7.10-11.
56. Gregory
Nazianzen, oration 43 in praise of St. Basil, no. 68. 57. Const. Auctorem
fidei, prop. 4. 58. Hist. Arianor. ad Monach., no. 52. 59. Oration 2 de sacr.
imaginib., no. 16. 60. Council of Chalcedon, prop. 4. 61. I P. 2.13. 62. Jn
10.5. 63. St. Cyprian, epistle to Antonianus, no. 24. 64. St. Cyprian, Lib. de
Unit: Eccles., no. 10. 65. St. Gelasius, epistle 18 to the bishops of Dardania,
no. 6. 66. Ibid.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário