Melchior Cano quote about the Papacy

[PluniaZ]

I’ve seen a lot of people trot out this quote from Melchior Cano as justification for less than total obedience to the Pope:

“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”

Usually people follow this quote by noting that Melchior Cano was “the great theologian of Trent” and that his treatise “De Locis theologicis” makes him “worthy of a place next to Saint Thomas Aquinas” (second quote from Thomas Aquinas).

But we also need to keep this in mind:

The new society of the Jesuits, also met with his violent opposition; and he was not grateful to them when, after attending the Council of Trent in 1545, he was sent, by their influence, in 1552, as bishop of the far-off see of the Canary Islands. His personal influence with King Philip II of Spain soon brought about his recall, and he was made provincial of his order in Castile. In 1556 he wrote his famous Consultatio theologica, in which he advised the king to resist the temporal encroachments of the papacy and, as absolute monarch, to defend his rights by bringing about a radical change in the administration of ecclesiastical revenues, thus making Spain less dependent on Rome. With this in his mind Pope Paul IV styled him "a son of perdition."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchor_Cano#Consultatio_theologica

Moreover, Melchior Cano has never been canonized. Nor have I seen any saint or church document approvingly cite his above quoted view of the Papacy.

And Pope Paul IV’s successor, Pope Pius IV, wrote in the Tridentine Creed that Catholics should have the following attitude toward the Pope:

“I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

 

[3_Dog_Night]

I don’t worry too much about Melchior Cano and whatever he may have said or written. I rely upon the Lord himself when Peter tried to dissuade Christ from his Passion. The exact words of Christ, “Get behind me Satan.” I am also partial to the exegesis of St. Augustine on Matthew 16 who gives a thorough explanation of Peter as the Rock.

I posted this elsewhere in one of the threads so I will not repeat it in its entirety here. It is from Deacon Augustine, a commentator on another forum. But the heart of the matter is this:

“Peter is the rock and the foundation insofar as he is a reflection of THE Rock and THE Foundation who is Christ Our Lord. Peter cannot here be divided from his confession of faith in Christ. Catholics of the hyper-ultramontanist stripe would have Peter irrespective of whether he has faith or not, whereas Protestants would have the faith without the person of Peter.”

What I see is a modern-day Peter whose words and teaching do not match the words of Christ, the deposit of faith and/or the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. **If I were standing beside Peter near the fire when he made his denial of Christ to the servant girl, would I be obedient to God to go along and agree with Peter’s denial? **

 

[PluniaZ]

Thanks. I’ll go with Pope Pius IV on this one and promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[dmar198]

I’ve seen a lot of people trot out this quote from Melchior Cano as justification for less than total obedience to the Pope:

Usually people follow this quote by noting that Melchior Cano was “the great theologian of Trent” and that his treatise “De Locis theologicis” makes him “worthy of a place next to Saint Thomas Aquinas” (second quote from Thomas Aquinas).

But we also need to keep this in mind:

Moreover, Melchior Cano has never been canonized. Nor have I seen any saint or church document approvingly cite his above quoted view of the Papacy.

And Pope Paul IV’s successor, Pope Pius IV, wrote in the Tridentine Creed that Catholics should have the following attitude toward the Pope:

“I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

I didn’t know that about Melchior Cano and I do think I’ve seen his quotation used by people critical of the pope. Thank you for pointing this out, this is a very useful insight that I will be glad to have around next time I see someone defending their criticism of the pope using that document. The specific point that he seems to be making in that quote, however, seems quite fair. That is, not everything a pope may say is beyond criticism. (I say this as a dedicated defender of Pope Francis, btw.)

Perhaps a better theologian to go to about this point is Bl. John Henry Newman:

“if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an ‘Absolute Obedience,’ he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.” source

And: "In support of what I have been saying, I refer to…Cardinal Turrecremata…[who] says…‘the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done… we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things…[but must] obey God rather than man…therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over.’ " source

And: "In support of what I have been saying, I [also] refer to…[St. Robert] Bellarmine…[who] says…‘as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls…and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will.’ " source

These quotations from Bl. John Henry Newman (and St. Robert Bellarmine, and Cardinal Turrecremata) are, in my opinion, good replacements for the one by Melchior Cano.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

Thanks. I’ll go with Pope Pius IV on this one and promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome.

Even his most recent false statement that ALL religions are a path to heaven? That clearly goes against Christ regardless if others can reach heaven (which I do believe). Christ is the only way to heaven. Not Buddha…Mohammad or any other false prophet.

 

[PluniaZ]

I didn’t know that about Melchior Cano and I do think I’ve seen his quotation used by people critical of the pope. Thank you for pointing this out, this is a very useful insight that I will be glad to have around next time I see someone defending their criticism of the pope using that document. The specific point that he seems to be making in that quote, however, seems quite fair. That is, not everything a pope may say is beyond criticism. (I say this as a dedicated defender of Pope Francis, btw.)

Perhaps a better theologian to go to about this point is Bl. John Henry Newman:

“if either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an ‘Absolute Obedience,’ he or she would be transgressing the laws of human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither.” source

And: "In support of what I have been saying, I refer to…Cardinal Turrecremata…[who] says…‘the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done… we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things…[but must] obey God rather than man…therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over.’ " source

And: "In support of what I have been saying, I [also] refer to…[St. Robert] Bellarmine…[who] says…‘as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls…and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will.’ " source

These quotations from Bl. John Henry Newman (and St. Robert Bellarmine, and Cardinal Turrecremata) are, in my opinion, good replacements for the one by Melchior Cano.

Those quotes seem like nitpicking a few sentences out of hundreds if not thousands of pages of writing, and posit extreme scenarios (e.g., the Pope trying to murder you), such that they are of no practical use to the faithful.

In contrast we have 2000 years of tradition assuring us that Saint Peter rules the Church through his successor, the Bishop of Rome, who is the source of truth and unity in the faith, to whom we owe true obedience. And we see the fruit of the schismatics and heretics who have opposed the Pope in their scattered sects over the last two millennia.

Rather than worry about imaginative scenarios at the prompting of the enemy, we ought rather to reverently put our faith in the Holy Father and trust our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on the rock of Saint Peter.

 

[James248]

Those quotes seem like nitpicking a few sentences out of hundreds if not thousands of pages of writing, and posit extreme scenarios (e.g., the Pope trying to murder you), such that they are of no practical use to the faithful.

In contrast we have 2000 years of tradition assuring us that Saint Peter rules the Church through his successor, the Bishop of Rome, who is the source of truth and unity in the faith, to whom we owe true obedience. And we see the fruit of the schismatics and heretics who have opposed the Pope in their scattered sects over the last two millennia.

Rather than worry about imaginative scenarios at the prompting of the enemy, we ought rather to reverently put our faith in the Holy Father and trust our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on the rock of Saint Peter.

I only have one question: What did Paul do when Peter started leading people into scandal by separating himself from the Gentiles during their communal gatherings? Did he assume an attitude of “total obedience?”

 

[PluniaZ]

I only have one question: What did Paul do when Peter started leading people into scandal by separating himself from the Gentiles during their communal gatherings? Did he assume an attitude of “total obedience?”

Paul didn’t write nasty comments about Peter on the internet, I can tell you that.

If you have a concern, by all means write a letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I. And pray for him. The Holy Spirt is protecting and guiding Pope Francis. It’s time Catholics act like it rather than trot out arguments commonly used by protestants and eastern orthodox.

 

[gus]

Paul didn’t write nasty comments about Peter on the internet, I can tell you that.

If you have a concern, by all means write a letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I. And pray for him. The Holy Spirt is protecting and guiding Pope Francis. It’s time Catholics act like it rather than trot out arguments commonly used by protestants and eastern orthodox.

What’s worse being critized on an Internet forum or be admonished by the word of God.
His admonishments will be discussed as long as the Bible remains in use.
I love Peter and his humility is so present in the words of Mark .
But impeccable he was not.
Popes have erred.
Especially in their personal lives and occasionally in their religious thoughts.
If a Pope holds a view which may or may not be heretical the Cardinals and theologians have an obligation to advise that Pope because of the damage that will be done to his office.
What’s worse a little criticism or being forever branded as a heritical Pontiff ,diminishing that office for all time.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Even his most recent false statement that ALL religions are a path to heaven? That clearly goes against Christ regardless if others can reach heaven (which I do believe). Christ is the only way to heaven. Not Buddha…Mohammad or any other false prophet.

Let’s see … which explanation shall I choose today?

It wasn’t translated properly.
English is not his original language – so its imprecise.
The statements were taken out of context.
The statements were spun a certain way by the media.
We/ I just don’t understand.
He never said any of that.
It was clarified later by the Vatican press office.
It was rewritten later by the Vatican press office.
He meant all religions are a “trail” to the “path”.
Maybe the statement(s) could have been clearer.
That isn’t how I would have stated things …
He has a right to his own opinions and thoughts.
He wasn’t speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter.

 

[PluniaZ]

"Catholics who constantly criticize the Pope and his actions and teachings could be falling into sins against charity and even against faith. “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). A person who has difficulties with a Holy Father should turn to prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for light and guidance. Faith sheds light on even the darkest corners of skepticism.

Moreover, we can be thankful for the gift of the papacy and the teaching authority of the Church. Having a Pope as a visible agent of unity in the Church is no small thing in this age of rampant doubts and division."

rcspirituality.org/ask-priest-questioning-pope-says/

 

[dmar198]

Even his most recent false statement that ALL religions are a path to heaven?

Do you have a link? I’m unaware of that statement and I’d like to read it.

Those quotes seem like nitpicking a few sentences out of hundreds if not thousands of pages of writing, and posit extreme scenarios (e.g., the Pope trying to murder you), such that they are of no practical use to the faithful.

First, I think you and I are probably agreeing with one another, I think your energies might be better directed against those who think the pope is a liberal and a “bad guy”. I frequently defend him from such types and have a whole page on my website dedicated to defending him, and no pages critical of him. I give that as evidence that you and I are probably in agreement and should stand together against unfair critics. My point is simply that popes can sometimes be criticized, not that this particular one deserves any sort of negative judgment. Bl. John Henry Newman was making this same point in a book dedicated largely to defending the pope – he was just pointing out that, from a doctrinal perspective, it is not impossible for a pope to say something incorrect, or even actively lead people astray. If somebody thinks that is happening, that doesn’t give them leeway to immediately post insults on the internet, the Church has a proper procedure for this sort of thing that is laid out in Matthew 18:15-18. First you talk to the pope privately, then you bring others along. There is a place for public criticism, but it is only after trying to deal with it privately. Haters on the internet are obviously not following the Church’s procedure.

Secondly, we shouldn’t immediately think someone is being a hater if they say something “conservative” after the pope says something that the media treats as “liberal.” Some of the stuff the Vatican has been putting out seems to support giving Holy Communion and absolution to people whom St. John Paul 2 said not to. Some people think this is a change in discipline, which it’s okay for a pope to change, and others think the pope is ignoring doctrine and must be opposed. That’s not impossible, but for those who think that, they need to follow the proper procedure. Ranting about the “liberal” pope is not proper procedure. Writing about your understanding of Church doctrine is okay, assuming done in a coherent and friendly way. So if somebody puts out a blog post saying “Despite what you may here, the divorced and remarried MAY NOT receive Communion unless they stop living sexually together” – that’s not being a hater and we shouldn’t get bent out of shape about it.

In short, we shouldn’t have knee-jerk reactions in either direction. Treat the pope and his critics fairly, and recognize that it is possible for a pope to need criticism, which has a long history in our Church and in Church doctrine.

Rather than worry about imaginative scenarios at the prompting of the enemy, we ought rather to reverently put our faith in the Holy Father and trust our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on the rock of Saint Peter.

Amen.

 

[James248]

Paul didn’t write nasty comments about Peter on the internet, I can tell you that.

If you have a concern, by all means write a letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I. And pray for him. The Holy Spirt is protecting and guiding Pope Francis. It’s time Catholics act like it rather than trot out arguments commonly used by protestants and eastern orthodox.

No. He brought out Peter’s guilt in front of the whole community.

I am praying for Pope Francis. But I would be doing a disservice to God if I did not raise my concerns and let the brethren be led astray.

 

[JPUSC]

Let’s see … which explanation shall I choose today?

It wasn’t translated properly.
English is not his original language – so its imprecise.
The statements were taken out of context.
The statements were spun a certain way by the media.
We/ I just don’t understand.
He never said any of that.
It was clarified later by the Vatican press office.
It was rewritten later by the Vatican press office.
He meant all religions are a “trail” to the “path”.
Maybe the statement(s) could have been clearer.
That isn’t how I would have stated things …
He has a right to his own opinions and thoughts.
He wasn’t speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Paul didn’t write nasty comments about Peter on the internet, I can tell you that.

If you have a concern, by all means write a letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I. And pray for him. The Holy Spirt is protecting and guiding Pope Francis. It’s time Catholics act like it rather than trot out arguments commonly used by protestants and eastern orthodox.

Paul also would not have refused to call out Peter’s actions when it caused the faithful to be scandalised or fall into confusion. Even more so when those who defend the Churches teaching are publicly criticised and those who contradict it are given free reign to teach their own speculations as though it were infallible truth.

It is possible to raise legitimate questions about certain actions (e.g. the Five Dubia, which scandalously remain unanswered) without questioning the office or authority of the successor of Peter. It is exactly what Paul did. He did not resist Peter to his face because he disputed his authority, instead he admonished Peter’s bad example because the faithful were starting to copy Peter’s error in refusing to sit with gentiles because of Peter’s authority.

Blind, unthinking obedience is simply not Catholic, and the Holy Spirit does not cause every action of the Pope; as clearly seen in the example of Peter’s denial of Christ. If you had been alive in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V published his papal bull Dum Diversas, would you have enthusiastically suggested that the Holy Spirit demanded we enslave “Saracens and pagans” when he wrote the following?

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude./QUOTE

 

[PluniaZ]

The Church is not a democracy. It is a kingdom. Jesus Christ is our King. His Holiness Pope Francis I is the Vicar of the King. We do best to obey the King’s Vicar.

"Amen, amen I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me."

John 13:20

 

[Trying2overcome]

I don’t agree with insulting or wishing harm upon a pope ( I think I may have committed these sins in the past, and if I have I regret it). But reproving or correcting a pope isn’t in any way anti Catholic. If a pope actually says or does something against Catholic morals or faith, or something imprudent; one can rebuke those words/actions licitly. St. Paul himself rebuked POPE St. Peter in Galatians 2 11:

But when Cephas [St. Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Also, St. Robert Bellarmine opined this:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."

(De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29,

Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418)

And heres something from St Thomas Aquinas:

In many passages of his works, St. Thomas upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example:

“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if they should stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’” (Summa Theologiae, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948, II-II, q.33, a.4).

Referring to the same episode, in which St. Paul resisted St. Peter “to his face,” St. Thomas teaches:

“The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: There was a danger for the preservation of evangelical truth… The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: ‘I spoke to Cephas,’ that is, Peter, ‘before everyone,’ since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone. In 1 Tim. 5:20, we read: ‘Admonish those who sin before everyone.’ This should be understood to refer to manifest sins, not hidden ones, since in the latter cases one should proceed according to the rules proper to fraternal correction” (Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14, lec. III, Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953, nn. 83-84).

The Angelic Doctor also shows how this passage of the Scriptures contains teachings not only for Hierarchs but for the faithful as well:

“To the Prelates an example of humility was given, so that they do not refuse to accept rectifications from their inferiors and subjects; and to the subjects, an example of zeal and liberty so they will not fear to correct their Prelates, above all when the crime is public and entails a danger for many” (ibid., n. 77).

In his Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, St. Thomas teaches how respectfully correcting a Prelate who sins is a work of mercy all the greater as the Hierarch’s position is higher:

“Fraternal correction, being a spiritual alms, is a work of mercy. But mercy is due mainly to the Prelate since he runs the greatest danger. Hence St. Augustine says in Regula (n. 11, PL 32, 1384): ‘Have pity not only on yourselves, but on them as well,’ that is, on the Prelates ‘among you who run a danger as high as the position they occupy.’ Therefore, fraternal correction extends also to Prelates.

“Furthermore, Ecclus. 17:12, says that God ‘gave to every one of them commandment concerning his neighbor.’ Now, a Prelate is our neighbor. Therefore, we must correct him when he sins. … Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the Prelates, either because man should not raise his voice against Heaven, or because the Prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the Prelates do not represent Heaven and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake. …

"For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the Prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects” (IV Sententiarum, d. 19, q. 2, a. 2).

Popes are not impeccable in everything they do or say or approve…

 

[PluniaZ]

I don’t agree with insulting or wishing harm upon a pope ( I think I may have committed these sins in the past, and if I have I regret it). But reproving or correcting a pope isn’t in any way anti Catholic. If a pope actually says or does something against Catholic morals or faith, or something imprudent; one can rebuke those words/actions licitly. St. Paul himself rebuked POPE St. Peter in Galatians 2 11:

Also, St. Robert Bellarmine opined this:

And heres something from St Thomas Aquinas:

Popes are not impeccable in everything they do or say or approve…

Saint Paul had a position and authority in the Church far exceeding anyone typing their opinions about the Pope on the internet today. In fact, the example of Paul rebuking Peter should increase the confidence of the faithful in the Pope, because it assures us that God surrounds the Holy Father with faithful advisers who will warn him if he is on the path to error.

An isolated sentence from Bellarmine devoid of context, which as far as I can tell has not been cited by any other writers of the church aside from Newman, is hardly valuable pastoral guidance for the faithful.

The same goes for Aquinas. His passage is hardly a call for every member of the laity to voice their opinion on everything the Pope says and does.

The Church’s pastoral guidance to the faithful has been consistently taught for 2000 years as expessed by the CCC 87:

"87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Citing obscure texts from Bellarmine as an excuse to criticize the Pope is hardly being docile.

 

[Trying2overcome]

Saint Paul had a position and authority in the Church far exceeding anyone typing their opinions about the Pope on the internet today. In fact, the example of Paul rebuking Peter should increase the confidence of the faithful in the Pope, because it assures us that God surrounds the Holy Father with faithful advisers who will warn him if he is on the path to error.

An isolated sentence from Bellarmine devoid of context, which as far as I can tell has not been cited by any other writers of the church aside from Newman, is hardly valuable pastoral guidance for the faithful.

The same goes for Aquinas. His passage is hardly a call for every member of the laity to voice their opinion on everything the Pope says and does.

The Church’s pastoral guidance to the faithful has been consistently taught for 2000 years as expessed by the CCC 87:

"87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Citing obscure texts from Bellarmine as an excuse to criticize the Pope is hardly being docile.

Well, the ‘dubia’ cardinals and bishops are in positions of authority and power. Therefore, if they publicly disagree with or reprove the pope, justly, then I’ll support them . And yes, we are to recieve with docility the teachings, but if they contradict Catholic traditonal teachings or morals then what are we to do? “There is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” says Ecclesiastes 3:7. Would you defend Pope Stephen VI? He had a corpse of a previous pope exhumed, dressed up, and set up in a synod. He then accused the corpse of a being unworthy of the pontificate, had some fingers of the corpse cut off, had the vestments torn off it, and finally had it thrown in the Tiber river. Crazy!! If pope becomes inflated and thinks he can change Catholic Truth, or get away with immoral things, then we must correct him. Or we must support those clergymen “in power” who do so. This is not something new.

 

[PluniaZ]

Well, the ‘dubia’ cardinals and bishops are in positions of authority and power. Therefore, if they publicly disagree with or reprove the pope, justly, then I’ll support them . And yes, we are to recieve with docility the teachings, but if they contradict Catholic traditonal teachings or morals then what are we to do? “There is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” says Ecclesiastes 3:7. Would you defend Pope Stephen VI? He had a corpse of a previous pope exhumed, dressed up, and set up in a synod. He then accused the corpse of a being unworthy of the pontificate, had some fingers of the corpse cut off, had the vestments torn off it, and finally had it thrown in the Tiber river. Crazy!! If pope becomes inflated and thinks he can change Catholic Truth, or get away with immoral things, then we must correct him. Or we must support those clergymen “in power” who do so. This is not something new.

The only person “inflated” here is a lay person who thinks it’s his job to publicly criticize the Vicar of Jesus Christ.