I. The Catholic System.
The effects of the system. - Completion of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. - Omnipotence of the Pope in the Church. - Influence of the French Concordat and other precedents from 1801 to 1870. - Why the clergy becomes ultramontane. - The dogma of Infallibility.
In 1801， at Rome， pending the negotiations for the Concordat， when Pius VII. still hesitated about the deposition in mass of the survivors of the ancient French episcopacy， clear-sighted observers already remarked， "Let this Concordat which the First Consul desires be completed，[1] and you will see， on its ratification， its immense importance and the power it will give to Rome over the episcopacy throughout the universe." - In effect， through this "extraordinary， nearly unexampled" act of authority， and certainly unequaled "in the history of the Church，"[2] the ultramontane theory， contested up to this time， maintained in the speculative region of abstract formulae， comes down to solid ground， into practical and lasting use. Willingly or not， "the Pope acts as if universal bishop；" urged and constrained by the lay power， attached to a dictatorship，[3] he entered upon it and so installed himself， and， ten years later， Napoleon， who had impelled him on， regretted that he had done so. Warned by his Gallican jurists， he saw the ecclesiastical import of his work； but it was too late to retreat - the decisive step had been taken. - For， in fact， the Pope had deprived all the chieftains of a great church of their thrones， "his colleagues and co-bishops，"[4] successors of the apostles under the same title as himself， members "of the same order and stamped " with the same "character，" eighty-five legitimate incumbents[5] and， still better， as admitted by himself， blameless， worthy， persecuted because they had obeyed him， banished from France on account of their unwillingness to quit the Roman Church. He had ordered them to resign； he had withdrawn apostolic powers from the thirteen who had refused to tender their resignations； to all， even to those who refused， he had appointed their successors. He assigned to the new titularies dioceses of a new pattern and， to justify novelties of such gravity，[6] he could allege no other reasons than circumstances， the exigencies of lay power， and the welfare of the Church. After that the Gallicans themselves， unless accepting the risk of a schism and of separating forever from the Holy See， were obliged to allow the Pope above and beyond the ordinary powers exercised by him within the old limits of canons and of custom， an extraordinary power unlimited by any canon or by any custom，[7] a plenary and absolute authority， a right above all other rights， by virtue of which， in cases determined by himself， he provided in a discretionary way for all Catholic interests， of which he thus becomes the supreme judge， the sole interpreter and the court of last appeal. An indestructible precedent was set up； it was the great corner-stone in the support of the modern Church edifice； on this definitive foundation all other stones were to be superposed， one by one. In 1801， Pius VII.， under the pressure of the reigning Napoleon， had obliged the prelates of the old régime， sullied by a monarchical origin and suspected of zeal for the dethroned Bourbons， to abandon their seats. In 1816， under the pressure of the re-established Bourbons， the same Pius VII. obliged Fesch， cardinal-archbishop of Lyons， and uncle of the fallen Napoleon， to abandon his seat.
Bercastel et Henrion， XIII， 192. Cardinal Fesch having been banished from France by the law of January 12， 1816， "the Pope no longer regarded the person of the cardinal， but the diocese that had to be saved at any cost， by virtue of the principle salus populi suprema lex. Consequently， he prohibited the cardinal from "exercising episcopal jurisdiction in his metropolitan church， and constituted M.
de Bernis administrator of that church， spiritually as well as temporally， notwithstanding all constitutions decreed even by the general councils， the apostolic ordinances， privileges， etc." In both cases the situation was similar， and， in the latter as in the former case， motives of the same order warranted the same use of the same power.