The Two Clements!
And again, it was no more “infallible” or untouchably binding on future popes than the case of the two Clements regarding the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Within the space of nine years, Clement XIV not only took no notice whatsoever of his immediate predecessor’s “perpetual” order, but he contradicted it “perpetually”. However, Clement XIII had the last laugh!
Clement XIII’s Bull of Jan. 07, 1765,
Apostolicum pascendi:
Regarding the Society of Jesus “…recently has been traduced by men…In order to reject the atrocious injury made to the Church of God…to stop with our Apostolic Authority the circulation of such unreasonable remarks…using the plenitude of the Apostolic Power…walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors by this Constitution whose effect shall be perpetual, We declare and state in the same form and manner as Our Predecessors, that the Institution of The Society of Jesus breaths to the highest point piety and holiness…”
Clement XIV’s Encyclical of July 21, 1773, *Dominus ac Redemptor Noster: *
“Now, we have perceived that the said Society of Jesus could no longer produce the abundant fruits and advantages…but, on the contrary that if it existed it was almost impossible that the Church could have true and permanent peace. Led by such considerations…we, after mature examination, of our own certain knowledge, and in the plenitude of the apostolic power, suppress and extinguish the said society…We declare, therefore, that it is perpetually broken up and dissolved…”
Pius VII Exercises HIS Plenitude Of Power
Pius VII, using the plenitude of his apostolic authority, re-established the Society of Jesus in 1814!
Consider also the Bull *Ex quo singulari * (July 11, 1742) of Benedict XIV {245th P.} in which he finally suppressed the Chinese Rites:
“…we condemn and detest their practice as superstitious…we revoke, annul, abrogate and wish to be deprived of all force and effect, all and each of those permissions, and say and announce that they must be considered for ever to be annulled, null, invalid and without any force or power.”
Pius XII, China and Japan
Was THAT irreformable? Pius XII did not think so! Under Pius XII {258th P.} 1939: The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda reversed Clement XI’s decision on the Chinese rites - and Benedict XIV’s “for ever” *Ex quo singulari * !
Under Canon 1258,
As to Japan: in (S.C.Prop. Fid., 26 May, 1936) AAS 28-406,
“An Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda was sent to Japan, on 26 May, 1936…It asserts that the Faith does not reject the rites and customs of any nation if they are in no way reprehensible; in fact it desires to defend and protect them.” As to “visiting of the national temples or Jinja. The answer was that the purpose of the visits was nothing more than to express sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.” (CLD pp.368/9.)
As to China: in (S.C.Prop. Fid., 8 Dec., 1939) AAS 32-24,
Catholics are permitted to be present at ceremonies in honor of Confucius in Confucian temples or in schools;
Erection of image of Confucius or tablet with his name on it is permitted in Catholic schools.
Catholic magistrates and students are permitted to passively attend public ceremonies which have the appearance of superstition.
It is licit and unobjectionable for head inclinations and other mani- festations of civil observance before the deceased or their images.
The oath on the Chinese rites, which was prescribed by Benedict XIV, is not fully in accord with recent regulations and is superfluous. (CLD pp.370/2.)
"In France and Germany the Bull was met with vigorous opposition and outside Rome it was not generally accepted. In spite of repeated prohibitions of “appeals to a Council” by Pius II in the Bull *Infructuosos palmites * of Nov 2, 1460, by Sixtus IV in the Bull Qui monitis of July 15, 1483, and by Julius II in the Bull *Suscepti regiminis * of July 1, 1509, secular princes as well as ecclesiastical bodies continued to use an appeal as a legitimate legal device. How is this fact, so perplexing for modern Catholics to be accounted for.
The canonist Gozzadini contests the validity and the binding force of the prohibition on the ground that it deprives the accused of a right which rests on natural law… If it was objected that the appeal was addressed to a tribunal which did not in fact exist, the answer was that the authority of the Church, which is greater than that of the Pope, endures even though no Council is actually sitting."
St Thomas More wrote to Cromwell: “…yet never thought I the Pope above the General Council.”
