Papal deposing power

"[21][22][23] In a meeting at Thurles in 1776, the bishops of Munster "with the exception of Dr. MacMahon of Killaloe, who absented himself, passed sentence on the Hibernia Dominicana and its supplement [in which Ghilini's letter of 1768 had been printed], giving our entire disapprobation of them, because they tend to weaken and subvert that allegiance, fidelity, and submission, which we acknowledge ourselves we owe from duty and from gratitude to his Majesty King George III., because they are likely to disturb the public peace and tranquillity, by raising unnecessary scruples in the minds of our people, and sowing the seeds of dissensions amongst them, in points in which they ought, both from their religion and their interest, to be firmly united; and because they manifestly tend to give a handle to those who differ in religious principles with us, to impute to us maxims that we utterly reject, and which are by no means founded in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

"[24] In 1774 "[t]he Munster bishops drew up a declaration repudiating the papal deposing power and denying that the Pope had any civil or temporal authority in Ireland.

"[25] "[W]hile deploring the terms of the oath, the Congregation of Propaganda considered it prudent not to condemn it lest it increase the hatred of Protestants and the difficulties of Catholics.

After noting the letter from the Bishop of Ossory, the letter states: "the views put forward by Troy deserve the highest commendation of the Holy See [...] whoever takes the oath in its present form affirms, with God as his witness, that he denounces and rejects the opinion that the pope has power to free subjects from an oath of loyalty taken by them to their rulers, despite the fact that almost all the old theologians [...] and general councils supported this teaching [...] such an opinion infringes greatly on the rights of the Holy See".

The letter continues "[N]evertheless, if the present formula were declared impious and inadmissable by the Holy See and if the pope issued letters to that effect, as did Paul V, it is feared that such a mode of action would [...] be fraught with danger and do more harm than good to the catholics [...] in the present circumstances the approach used by the Holy See for the past century or so must be continued; in other places, and particularly in Holland, certain forms of oaths have been prescribed by the civil authorities [...]; the Holy See has not formally approved of such forms, nor has it condemned them publicly; the same approach is advisable in the case of the Irish catholics; although the former hostility shown by the protestants towards the catholics [...] appears to have died down somewhat, there is a danger that a public declaration concerning the oath would arouse old hatreds and draw down the displeasure of the civil authorities on the Holy See, [...] consequently, the circumstances and the time must be taken into consideration" The letter concludes: "[N]evertheless, although the Holy See may refrain from issuing a formal public decree against the oath, it does not automatically follow that the formula is to be accepted; nor does it mean that it is not right for the bishops [...] to dissuade their subjects from taking such a dangerous and obnoxious oath; indeed, it is their duty to admonish the faithful, especially in private conversations with them [...]; these arc the directions which the Congregation considers it opportune to send you in accordance with the intentions of the pope.

"When Archbishop Butler of Cashel had too hastily renounced the deposing power, and his example was followed so hastily by others, that it was too late to retract, he received from the sacred congregation of Propaganda a letter of Rebuke, because he had presumed to transact a business so momentous, without previously advising with the Court of Rome"[29] The letter stated: "Your duty and the usual respect due to His Holiness seemed to require that you should not have determined anything in a business of such magnitude, without first consulting the sovereign pontiff [...] It was this that gave no small pain to his Holiness and this sacred congregation"[30] In a rescript dated 23 June 1791, addressed to the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland by Cardinal Leonardo Antonelli by the authority and command of Pope Pius VI, it was stated: "The See of Rome never taught that Faith is not to be kept with the Heterodox: that an Oath to Kings separated from Catholic Communion can be violated: that it is lawful for the Bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions.

"[31] In 1805, Pope Pius VII stated in a letter to the Papal Nuncio at Vienna that "[T]he Church […] had moreover established, as the penalty of the crime of heresy, the confiscation and loss of all property possessed by heretics.

But, although she cannot exercise her right of deposing heretics from their principalities"[32][33] In 1860 Henry Edward Manning, who later became Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and a Cardinal, wrote, "That vast chimera at which the English people especially stand in awe, the deposing power of the Pope, what was it but that supreme arbitration whereby the highest power in the world, the Vicar of the Incarnate Son of God, anointed to be high priest, to be the supreme temporal ruler, sat in his tribunal, impartially to judge between nation and nation, between people and prince, between sovereign and subject; and that deposing power grew up by the providential action of God in the world, and it taught subjects obedience, and princes clemency.

"[36] The issue of the same publication for 12 December 1874 contained a letter from Charles Langdale (born 1822) stating: "In common with many of my contemporaries I have, more than once, taken the Catholic oath, a portion of which runs as follows :—'And I do further declare that it is not an article of my Faith [...] that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever; and I do declare that I do not believe the Pope of Rome [...] hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or preeminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm.