On the Earthly and Heavenly Kingship of Christ

The following was taken from Joseph Pohle’s Sorteriology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption

CHRIST’S KINGSHIP

1. DEFINITION OF THE TERM.—The word king (rex, βασιλεύς,) denotes a sovereign invested with supreme authority over a nation, country or tribe.

a) Kingship includes three separate and distinct functions: legislative, judiciary, and executive, which together constitute the supreme power of jurisdiction or government.

The royal dominium iurisdictionis must not be confounded with what is known as the right of ownership (dominium proprietatis). The latter is directed to the possession of impersonal objects, while the former implies the governance of free persons or subjects. The two differ both logically and in fact, and neither can be directly deduced from the other. The ruling power of a king or emperor by no means implies the possession of property rights either in his subjects or their belongings. The subjects of a monarch are as free to possess private property as the monarch himself, not to speak of the right of personal liberty.
It may be well to observe, however, that these limitations apply to earthly kings only. God, being the Creator and Lord of the universe, is the absolute owner of all things, including men and their belongings.1

b) The royal power with its various functions may be either secular or spiritual. The former is instituted for man’s earthly, the latter for his spiritual benefit. Christ’s is a spiritual kingdom, and will continue as such throughout eternity. Holy Scripture and the Church frequently liken His kingship to the office of a shepherd, to emphasize the loving care with which He rules us and provides for our necessities.

2. CHRIST’S EARTHLY KINGSHIP AS TAUGHT IN SACRED SCRIPTURE.—Both the Old and the New Testament represent our Lord Jesus Christ as a true King, who descended upon this terrestrial planet to establish a spiritual kingdom. This kingdom is the Catholic Church. Christ did not come as a worldly monarch, but as “the bishop of our souls.”2

a) If we examine the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament we find the kingdom of Israel, or “throne of David,” represented as a type of the Messianic kingdom that was to come. Cfr. 2 Kings 7:12 sq.: “I will raise up thy [David’s] seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house [i. e., temple, church] to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” The same prediction is made in Psalms 2, 30, 37, 45, 72, and 109. Isaias,3 Daniel,4 and Zacharias5 depict the Messias in glowing colours as a Ruler, as the Prince of peace and the mighty General of a great army. These prophecies were all fulfilled, though not in the manner anticipated by the Jews. The Messias came as a King, but not with the pomp of an earthly sovereign, nor for the purpose of freeing the Jewish nation from the yoke of its oppressors.

Nevertheless the New Testament hails the lowly infant born of the Blessed Virgin as a great King. Even before his birth the Archangel informs His Mother that “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.”6 The wise men hurried to His manger from the far East and anxiously inquired: “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?”7 Yet when, after the miraculous multiplication of loaves, the Jews tried to “take him by force and make him king,” Jesus “fled again into the mountain himself alone.”8 And when, in the face of death, Pilate asked Him: “Art thou a king then?” He answered: “Thou sayest that I am a king.”9 After they had crucified Him, “they put over his head his cause written: This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”10 Sorely disappointed in their worldly hopes, and still enmeshed in political ambitions, the two disciples who went to Emmaus lamented: “But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed Israel.”11

b) This seeming contradiction between the Old Testament prophecies and the actual life of our Lord Jesus Christ finds its solution in the Church’s teaching that His is a purely spiritual kingdom. Cfr. Is. 60:18 sqq.; Jer. 23:5 sqq.; Ezech. 37:21 sqq. For the sake of greater clearness, it will be advisable to separate the quaestio iuris from the quaestio facti, and to treat each on its own merits.

α) The quaestio facti.—Taking the facts as we know them, there can be no doubt that Christ never intended to establish an earthly kingdom. He fled when the Jews attempted to make him king.12 He acknowledged the Roman Emperor as the legitimate ruler of Palestine and commanded the Jews to “render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”13 He consistently refused to interfere in secular affairs, as when he said to the man who asked Him to adjudicate a question of inheritance: “Who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you?”14 And He expressly declared before Pilate:15 “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.”16
β) The quaestio iuris.—What first strikes us from the juridic point of view is: Did Christ merely refrain from asserting His legal claim to secular kingship, or had He no such claim, at least in actu primo? Catholic theologians agree that as “the Son of David” Christ possessed no dynastic title to the kingdom of Juda; first, because His Messianic kingdom extended far beyond the limits of Palestine, in fact embraced the whole world; and secondly, because neither the Blessed Virgin Mary nor St. Joseph, though both descended from the “house of David,” had any hereditary claim to the throne which had been irretrievably lost under Jechonias.17 There is another point on which theologians are also of one mind. By virtue of His spiritual kingship the Godman possesses at least indirect power over all secular affairs, for else His spiritual power could not be conceived as absolutely unlimited, which would have imperiled the purpose of the Incarnation. This indirect power over worldly affairs is technically known as potestas indirecta in temporalia.

Its counterpart is the potestas directa in temporalia, and in regard to this there exists a long-drawn-out controversy among theologians. Gregory of Valentia and Cardinal Bellarmine18 hold that Christ had no direct jurisdiction in secular or temporal matters, while Suarez19 and De Lugo20 maintain that He had. The affirmative opinion appeals to us as more probable, though the Scriptural texts marshalled in its favor by De Lugo21 cannot be said to be absolutely convincing. These texts (Matth. 28:18; Acts 10:36; 1 Cor. 15:27; Apoc. 1:5 and 19:16) can be explained partly by the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum,22 partly by reference to our Lord’s spiritual kingdom. De Lugo’s theological arguments, however, are very strong indeed. Take this one, for example. Christ’s direct jurisdiction in matters temporal is based on the Hypostatic Union. On account of the Hypostatic Union His sacred humanity was entitled to such excellencies and prerogatives as the power of working miracles, the fulness of knowledge, the highest measure of the beatific vision, the dignity of headship over all creatures,23 etc. And it is but reasonable to conclude that there must have been due to Him in a similar way that other prerogative which we may call kingship over all creatures.24 From this point of view it may be argued that the theandric dignity of our Lord, flowing from the Hypostatic Union, gave Him an imprescriptible claim to royal power, so that, had He willed, He could have deposed all the kings and princes of this world and constituted Himself the Head of a universal monarchy.

Bellarmine’s apprehension that this teaching might exert a pernicious influence on the papacy, is absolutely groundless. For, in the first place, Christ’s vice-gerent on earth is not Christ Himself, and secondly, the prerogatives and powers enjoyed by our Lord, even those of a purely spiritual nature, are not eo ipso enjoyed by the Pope. “Christ was able to do many things in the spiritual realm,” rightly observes De Lugo, “which the Pope cannot do; for example, institute sacraments, confer grace through other than sacramental channels, etc.”25

These considerations also explain why Christ declared Himself legally exempt from the obligation of paying taxes and “paid the didrachmas” solely to avoid scandal.26

The question as to the property rights enjoyed by our Divine Saviour may be solved by the same principle which we have applied to that of His temporal jurisdiction. Vasquez was inconsistent in rejecting De Lugo’s solution of the former problem after accepting his view of the latter.27 For, while it is perfectly true that the Godman never laid claim to earthly goods, but lived in such abject poverty that He literally “had not where to lay his head,”28 this does not argue that He had no legal right to acquire worldly possessions. The simple truth is that He had renounced this right for good reasons.

It is an article of faith, defined by Pope John XXII in his Constitution “Quum inter nonnullos,” that Christ actually possessed at least a few things as His personal property.29

3. CHRIST’S HEAVENLY KINGSHIP, OR THE DOGMA OF HIS ASCENSION AND SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.—The Resurrection of our Lord and His Descent into hell merely formed the preliminaries of His kingly office. It was by His glorious Ascension that He took formal possession of His royal throne in Heaven, which Holy Scripture describes as “sitting at the right hand of God.” Both His Ascension and His sitting at the right hand of God are fundamental articles of faith, as may be judged from the fact that they have been incorporated into the Apostles’ Creed.

a) There is no need of entering into a detailed Scriptural argument to prove these dogmas. Our Lord Himself clearly predicted His Ascension into Heaven,30 and the prophecy was fulfilled in the presence of many witnesses. Mark 16:19: “And the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.”31

The argument from Tradition is copiously developed by Suarez in the 51st disputation of his famous treatise De Mysteriis Vitae Christi.

Our Lord “ascended by His own might,” says the Roman Catechism, “and was not raised aloft by the power of another, as was Elias, who ‘went up’ in a fiery chariot into heaven (4 Kings 2:11), or as was the prophet Habacuc (Dan. 14:35 sqq.), or Philip the deacon (Acts 8:39), who, borne through the air by the divine power, traversed far distant parts of the earth. Neither did He ascend into heaven solely as God, by the supreme power of the Divinity, but also as man; for although the Ascension could not have taken place by natural power, yet that virtue with which the blessed soul of Christ had been endowed, was capable of moving the body as it pleased; and his body, now glorified, readily obeyed the command of the actuating soul. And thus we believe that Christ, as God and man, ascended by His own power into heaven.”32
The phrase, “sitteth on the right hand of God,” must not, of course, be interpreted literally, since with God there is neither right nor left. It is a figurative expression, intended to denote the exalted station occupied by our Lord in heaven,33 and also His calm, immutable possession of glory and jurisdiction over the whole universe.34 It is in His capacity of royal judge that Jesus will one day reappear with great power and majesty “to judge the living and the dead.”35

b) The two dogmas under consideration have both a Christological and a Soteriological bearing.

α) From the Christological point of view our Saviour’s Ascension as well as His sitting on the right hand of the Father signalize the beginning, or rather the continuation, of the status exaltationis, of which His Resurrection and Descent into hell were mere preludes. His humiliation (status exinanitionis) in the “form of a servant,”36 His poverty, suffering, and death, made way for an eternal kingship in Heaven. The truly regal splendor of our Divine Redeemer during and after His Ascension is more strongly emphasized in the Apostolic Epistles than in the Gospels. In the Epistles the epithet “Lord” (Dominus, ὁ κύριος) nearly always connotes royal dominion. Cfr. 1 Tim. 6:15: “Who is the Blessed and only Mighty, King of kings, and Lord of lords.” It is only since His Ascension into Heaven that Christ rules the universe conjointly with the Father, though this joint dominion will not reach its highest perfection till the day of the Last Judgment, when all creation will lie in absolute subjection “under His feet.”37

β) From the Soteriological point of view it would be wrong to represent Christ’s Ascension (not to speak of His Resurrection and Descent into hell) as the total or even partial cause (causa meritoria) of our Redemption. The atonement was effected solely by the sacrifice of the Cross. Nevertheless St. Paul writes: “Jesus … entered … into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.”38 In other words, He continues to exercise His mediatorial office in Heaven. How are we to understand this? St. Thomas explains it as follows: “Christ’s Ascension is the cause of our salvation in a twofold way, first on our part, and secondly on His. On our part, in so far as His Ascension directs our minds to Him.… On His part, in so far as He ascended for our salvation, (1) to prepare for us the way to Heaven, … (2) because Christ entered Heaven, as the High Priest entered the Holy of holies, to make intercession for us;39 … (3) in order that, seated as Lord God on the throne of Heaven, He might thence send us divine gifts.”40 As is apparent from the last-mentioned two points, Christ’s kingship is closely bound up with His priesthood. In fact it may be said in a general way that the three functions or offices of our Divine Redeemer are so closely intertwined that they cannot be separated.

For the special benefit of canonists we would observe that the threefold character of these functions furnishes no adequate basis for the current division of the power of the Church into potestas ordinis, potestas magisterii, and potestas iurisdictionis.41 The traditional division into potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis is the only adequate and correct one from the dogmatic point of view.42

4. CHRIST’S KINGSHIP AS CONTINUED IN HIS CHURCH ON EARTH.—We have shown that our Divine Redeemer did not claim secular or temporal jurisdiction. It follows a fortiori that the Church which He has established is a purely spiritual kingdom and must confine herself to the government of souls.

a) The Catholic Church was not established as a political power. She represents that peaceful Messianic kingdom which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament prophets and which the Prince of Peace founded with His Precious Blood. Hence the hierarchical order displayed in the papacy, episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate, is purely spiritual. Hence, too, the means of sanctification which the Church employs (prayer, sacrifice, and the sacraments) are of an exclusively spiritual character. Christ, who was the King of Kings, did not disturb the earthly monarchs of His time in their jurisdiction, and it cannot be the mission of His Church to grasp at political power or treat temporal rulers as her vassals. Hers is a purely spiritual dominion for the sanctification of souls.

Being God’s kingdom on earth, the Church exists in and for this world, but is not of it. The theory of a few medieval canonists that she enjoys direct jurisdiction over all nations and rulers, has no foundation either in Sacred Scripture or in history. It is unevangelical for the reason that Christ never claimed such power. It is unhistorical because the “donation of Constantine,” on which it rests, is a fiction.43 This theory, which was inspired by the imposing phenomenon of the Holy Roman Empire, has never been adopted by the Church, nor is it maintained by the majority of her theologians and canonists. The relation between Church and State still remains a knotty problem.44 Harnack seriously distorts the truth when he says: “The Roman Church in this way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman world-empire, of which it is the actual continuation; the empire has not perished, but has only undergone a transformation. If we assert, and mean the assertion to hold good even of the present time, that the Roman Church is the old Roman Empire consecrated by the Gospel, that is no mere ‘clever remark,’ but the recognition of the true state of the matter historically, and the most appropriate and fruitful way of describing the character of this Church. It still governs the nations; its popes rule like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius; Peter and Paul have taken the place of Romulus and Remus: the bishops and archbishops, of the proconsuls; the troops of priests and monks correspond to the legions; the Jesuits, to the imperial body-guard. The continued influence of the old Empire and its institutions may be traced in detail, down to individual legal ordinances, nay, even in the very clothes. That is no church like the evangelical communities, or the national churches of the East; it is a political creation, and as imposing as a world-empire, because the continuation of the Roman Empire.”45 The possession of political power may be useful, nay, relatively speaking, necessary to insure to the Pope the free and untrammelled exercise of his spiritual functions; but it does not enter into the essence of the papacy, which for centuries has flourished without it and still commands the highest respect in spite of its spoliation by the Italian government.

b) The Church exercises a truly royal dominion over the souls of men, and hence must be entitled to all the prerogatives of a spiritual kingship. That is to say, within the limits of her divinely ordained constitution, she possesses legislative as well as judicial power over her members, including the executive right of inflicting punishment.46 There can be no exercise of judicial power without the power of compulsion (potestas coactiva s. vindicativa) and it is, moreover, a formally defined dogma that the Church possesses this power.47

The penalties which she is authorized to inflict are, of course, predominantly spiritual (penitential acts, ecclesiastical censures, and especially excommunication).48 But she can also impose temporal and bodily punishments (poenae temporales et corporales). We know that she has exercised this power, and it would be temerarious to deny that she possesses it.49

Has the Church also the power to put malefactors to death (ius gladii)? Canonists are not agreed on this point, though all admit that if the Church decides to inflict the death penalty, the sentence must be carried out by the secular power (brachium saeculare), because it would be unbecoming for the Spouse of Christ to stain her hands with blood, even if a deadly crime had been perpetrated against her.
It is a historical fact that the Church has never pronounced (much less, of course, executed) the death sentence or claimed the right to inflict it. Whenever, in the Middle Ages, she found herself constrained to pronounce judgment for a crime which the secular power was wont to punish by death (e. g. voluntary and obstinate heresy), she invariably turned the culprit over to the State. The cruel practice of burning heretics has fortunately ceased and will never be revived.

Regarded from the standpoint of religious principle, the question of the ius gladii is purely academic. The great majority of canonists seem to hold that the Church does not possess the right of inflicting capital punishment. The contrary teaching of Tarquini and De Luca50 has occasioned much unfavorable criticism, and Cavagnis undoubtedly voices the conviction of most contemporary canonists when he says51 that the so-called ius gladii has no solid basis either in Scripture or Tradition. Our Divine Redeemer did not approve the infliction of capital punishment,52 nay, He restrained His followers from inflicting bodily injury.53 St. Paul, in spite of his severity, never took recourse to any but spiritual measures. The great Pope Nicholas I said: “God’s holy Church has no other sword than the spiritual; she does not kill, she dispenses life.”54 Her kingdom is purely spiritual, and hence she must leave the infliction of capital punishment to the secular power.55

The most determined opponent of the Church’s royal office is modern Liberalism, which employs all the powers of civil government to obstruct the exercise of her spiritual jurisdiction or to circumscribe that jurisdiction as narrowly as possible. Among the means invented for this purpose are the so-called ius circa sacra, the appellatio tamquam ab abusu,56 and the placetum regium,57—in a word the whole iniquitous system known in English-speaking countries as Cæsaropapism or Erastianism58 and based on the pernicious fallacy that the State is supreme in ecclesiastical affairs.

READINGS:—* St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 22, and the Commentators.—A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de l’Homme-Dieu, Paris 1899.—* V. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen Bundes, Ratisbon 1870.—IDEM, Die Opferlehre des Hebräerbriefes, Dillingen 1855.—W. Schenz, Die priesterliche Tätigkeit des Messias nach dem Prophcten Isaias, Ratisbon 1892.—J. Grimal, Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, Paris 1908 (English tr. by M. J. Keyes, The Priesthood and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Philadelphia 1915).—* Fr. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach den Evangelien dargestellt, Brixen 1892.—Tanner, S. J., Cruentum Christi Sacrificium, Incruentum Missae Sacrificium Explicatum, Prague 1669.—B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein König nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904.—A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893–5.—M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia 1910.—Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 196–207, 2nd ed., London 1901.—W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 1–41, London s. a.—P. Batiffol, L’Enseignement de Jésus, Paris 1906.—J. H. Newman. Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day, New Impression, London 1898, pp. 52–62.—Other authorities quoted in the foot-notes.

1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss. God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, pp. 286 sqq.

2 Cfr. 1 Pet. 2:25.

3 Is. 9:6 sqq., 11.

4 Dan. 7:13 sqq.

5 Zach. 9.

6 Luke 1:32 sq.

7 Matth. 2:2.

8 John 6:15.

9 John 18:37.

10 Matth. 27:37.

11 Luke 24:21. Cfr. Acts 1:6.

12 John 6:15.

13 Matth. 22:21.

14 Luke 12:14.

15 John 18:36.

16 Cfr. Ferd. Stentrup, Soteriolagia, thes. 138. For a critical refutation of Loisy’s errors see M. Lepin. Christ and the Gospel (English tr.), Philadelphia 1910, espeially pp. 475 sqq.

17 Cfr. Jer. 22:30.

18 De Rom. Pontifice, V, 4 sq.

19 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 42, sect. 2.

20 De Myst. Incarn., disp. 30, § 1.

21 L. c., n. 5.

22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 184 sqq.

23 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 239 sqq.

24 De Lugo, l. c., n. 8.

25 L. c., n. 11.

26 Cfr. Matth. 17:23 sqq.

27 De Incarn., disp. 87, cap. 6.

28 Luke 9:58. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 40, art. 3.

29 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 494.

30 John 6:63; 14:1 sqq.; 16:28.

31 Ὁ μὲν οὗν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνηλήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

32 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 7, qu. 2. Cfr. S. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 57, art. 1.

33 Cfr. Heb. 1:13.

34 Cfr. Eph. 1:20 sqq.

35 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 58.

36 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 95 sq.

37 Cfr. Eph. 1:22 sqq.; Heb. 2:8.

38 νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Heb. 9:24.

39 Heb. 7:25.

40 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 57, art. 6.

41 This division is employed by Walter, Phillips, Richter, Hinschius, and others.

42 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 67, Freiburg 1873; Cavagnis, Instit. Iuris Publ. Ecclesiae, 4th ed., Vol. I, p. 24, Rome 1906.

43 Cfr. L. Duchesne, The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes (English tr.), p. 120, London 1908; J. P. Kirsch in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 118 sqq.

44 Cfr. J. Pohle in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, 229 sqq.

45 Das Wesen des Christentums, p. 157, Leipzig 1902 (English tr.: What is Christianity? p. 270, 2nd ed., New York 1908).

46 Cfr. Matth. 16:19; 18:15 sqq.

47 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 499, 640, 1504 sq.

48 Cfr. 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 13:1 sq.; 1 Tim. 1:20.

49 Cfr. Bouix, De Iudic., Vol. I, p. 66, Paris 1855.

50 Inst. Iuris Eccl. Publ., Vol. I, pp. 261 sqq., Rome 1901.

51 Inst. Iuris Publ. Eccl., 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 190 sqq., Rome 1906.

52 Cfr. Luke 9:53 sqq.

53 Cfr. Matth. 26:52.

54 “Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladium non habet nisi spiritualem, non occidit, scd vivificat.” (Decr. Grat., c. 6, causa 33, qu. 2.)

55 Cfr. A. Vermeersch. S. J., Tolerance (tr. by W. H. Page), pp. 58 sqq., London 1913; J. Pohle, art. “Toleration” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV; J. Keating, S. J., in The Month, No. 582, pp. 607 sqq.

56 Cfr. R. L. Burtsell in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 650 sqq.

57 Cfr. S. Luzio in the Catholic Encyclopedia, s. v. “Exequatur,” Vol. V, pp. 707 sq.

58 On the true meaning of this loosely used term see B. Ward in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 514 sqq.