When Rome Turned Christ’s Spiritual Church into an Earthly Power

Denzinger part 53

When the Spiritual Church Is Turned into an Earthly Power: A Dispute Against Pius IX and the “Twofold Power on Earth”

Denzinger 1841, taken from Pius IX’s encyclical Etsi multa luctuosa of November 2, 1873, is worth disputing because it takes biblical truths about God, Caesar, civil obedience, and Christian suffering, and then places them inside a Roman framework that subtly enlarges the institutional Church into a second earthly power. The passage does not begin with an obviously false statement. It begins with a truth Scripture itself teaches, namely that civil authority exists under God and that Christians are not lawless rebels against lawful government. Yet from that truth, Pius IX moves toward a much larger claim: that there are “two powers” on earth, one civil and one ecclesiastical, and that the Church of Christ is a supernatural power presiding over “the city of God.” That is where the dispute must begin.

The encyclical states:

“Faith teaches and human reason demonstrates that a twofold order of things exists, and that at the same time two powers are to be distinguished on earth, one naturally which looks out for the tranquillity of human society and secular affairs, but the other, whose origin is above nature, which presides over the city of God, namely, the Church of Christ, divinely established for the peace and the eternal salvation of souls.”

There is a serious logical problem in this sentence. Scripture certainly teaches that civil authority exists. Scripture also teaches that Christ has a Church. But it does not follow that Christ’s Church is therefore an earthly ruling power alongside the civil power. Pius IX has joined together two truths and drawn from them a conclusion that Scripture does not clearly teach. The first truth is that earthly rulers have a legitimate role in maintaining civil order. The second truth is that Christ has established His Church for the salvation of souls. The disputed conclusion is that the Church, as an institution, is therefore a “power” on earth comparable to Caesar, though higher in origin and spiritual in purpose.

That conclusion must be tested by the words of Christ Himself. When Jesus stood before Pilate, He did not present His kingdom as an earthly jurisdiction competing with Rome. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight” (John 18:36). This sentence is decisive. Christ did not say that His kingdom was one more earthly power, only more sacred than the others. He said that His kingdom was not of this world. He then gave the practical proof: “then would my servants fight.” Earthly kingdoms use earthly force. Earthly governments bear the sword. Earthly powers defend territory, enforce law, and rule through visible jurisdiction. Christ’s kingdom is different in nature. It is real, but it is not worldly. It is authoritative, but it is not coercive. It is visible in the lives of the redeemed, but it does not become visible as an earthly dominion seeking governmental power.

This is the central point. Christ’s Church is spiritual in origin, spiritual in nature, spiritual in life, spiritual in warfare, and spiritual in mission. It is not imaginary. It is not merely private. It is not invisible in the sense that it has no embodied people on earth. But it is spiritual because it is born from above, created by the Word of God, indwelt by the Holy Ghost, united to Christ in heaven, and called to bear witness rather than to rule the nations as an earthly power. A spiritual Church was never designed to rule in the manner of earthly kingdoms. It was designed to testify, preach, suffer, serve, worship, disciple, and wait for the return of Christ.

The Lord made this distinction repeatedly. When His disciples disputed about greatness, He did not teach them a sacred version of worldly authority. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them” (Matthew 20:25). Then He drew the contrast: “But it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:26). This is not a minor correction. It is a direct rebuke of the instinct to turn the kingdom of God into a hierarchy of dominion. Among the Gentiles, authority is exercised by rank, power, and command. Among Christ’s people, greatness is measured by service. “Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27). The Son of man Himself “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

Therefore, when any later ecclesiastical system presents the Church as an earthly power, the reader must ask whether that system has preserved the mind of Christ or absorbed the political instincts of the world. Christ did not establish a spiritual empire to stand beside Caesar. He established a redeemed people who belong to heaven while living faithfully on earth. Paul writes, “Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). The Church’s citizenship is heavenly. Its Head is heavenly. Its life is hidden with Christ in God. Its hope is not the conquest of civil power, but the appearing of the Lord.

Pius IX continues:

“Moreover, these duties of the twofold power have been very wisely ordained, that ‘the things that are God’s may be rendered to God,’ and, on account of God, ‘to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ [Matt. 22:21].”

Here Pius IX appeals to Matthew 22:21, where Christ says, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” This is a true and weighty Scripture. But it does not say what Rome needs it to say. Christ’s words limit Caesar, but they do not enthrone Rome. They teach that Caesar may receive what belongs to Caesar, but God must receive what belongs to God. They prevent the state from claiming divine possession over man’s soul. They also prevent man from using religion as an excuse for ordinary civil rebellion. But Christ does not say, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto the Roman Church the things that are God’s.” He does not insert an ecclesiastical power as the owner or administrator of God’s portion.

This distinction matters profoundly. The things that are God’s are not transferred to a clerical institution. They remain God’s. Worship belongs to God. Conscience belongs to God. The soul belongs to God. Salvation belongs to God. Judgment belongs to God. The Church may preach the Word of God, but it does not become God. The Church may bear witness to the truth, but it does not own the conscience. The Church may call men to repentance, but it does not become the Lord of faith. Paul expressly says, “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy” (2 Corinthians 1:24). That one sentence cuts deeply against any ecclesiastical system that turns spiritual ministry into dominion over the faithful.

Pius IX adds a quotation concerning Caesar:

“Who ‘is great on this account, because he is less than heaven; for he himself belongs to Him to whom belong heaven and every creature.’”

As a statement about civil authority under God, this is reasonable. Caesar is not absolute. Caesar is under heaven. Civil rulers belong to God because all creation belongs to God. No king, emperor, parliament, president, prince, or magistrate is sovereign in the ultimate sense. “The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). Civil power is derivative, limited, and accountable.

Yet the same logic must be applied to the Church as an institution. If Caesar is great because he is less than heaven, then the visible Church is also under heaven. Bishops are under heaven. Councils are under heaven. Popes are under heaven. Ecclesiastical offices are under heaven. No spiritual leader may take the place of Christ. No church court may take the place of the judgment seat of God. No visible institution may claim practical ownership over the conscience that belongs to the Lord. The Church is not heaven. The Church is not Christ. The Church is not the Holy Ghost. The Church is the body that lives by Christ, the temple inhabited by the Spirit, and the flock shepherded by the Chief Shepherd. It is holy only as it abides in Him.

This is where Rome’s reasoning becomes unstable. Pius IX rightly restricts Caesar by saying Caesar is beneath heaven, but then Roman theology often enlarges the institutional Church until it becomes the earthly administrator of heaven’s rule. Scripture does not permit that move. Christ alone is “the head over all things to the church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22–23). Christ alone is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2:5). Christ alone is the “great high priest, that is passed into the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14). Christ alone is the Shepherd and Bishop of souls (1 Peter 2:25). The Church is not a second incarnation of Christ’s ruling authority on earth. It is His redeemed people, called to obey Him and bear witness to Him.

Pius IX then says of the Church:

“And from him, surely by divine mandate, the Church has never turned aside, which always and everywhere strives to nurture obedience in the souls of her faithful; and they should inviolably keep, this obedience, to the supreme princes and their laws insofar as they are secular.”

This part of the passage contains a biblical principle. Christians are not called to be anarchists. The New Testament does teach ordinary submission to civil authorities. Paul writes, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1). Peter writes, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13). The Church should teach believers to live peaceably, honestly, and honourably in society. Christians should not confuse persecution for righteousness with punishment for wrongdoing. They should not cloak criminal behaviour in religious language. They should not dishonour Christ by becoming lawless.

But again, the Roman framing must be challenged. The Church may exhort obedience to lawful civil authority, but that does not make the Church an earthly power over civil society. Teaching obedience is not the same as possessing jurisdiction. Preaching righteousness is not the same as ruling nations. Calling men to obey God is not the same as becoming a supernatural government on earth. The apostles taught obedience under pagan rulers, yet they did not present themselves as a rival political power. They did not claim a Christian state. They did not seek legislative supremacy. They did not establish a court with coercive authority over society. They preached Christ crucified and risen, gathered churches, appointed elders, suffered persecution, and waited for the Lord from heaven.

The apostolic pattern is clear in Acts. When Peter and John were commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus, they did not claim temporal jurisdiction over Jerusalem. They did not answer by saying the Church was a second earthly power with superior legal authority. They said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:19). Later, when commanded again, Peter and the other apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Their answer was not political supremacy. Their answer was spiritual obedience. They accepted suffering rather than abandon witness. They did not seize the sword. They did not turn the Church into a state. They obeyed God and bore the cost.

Pius IX quotes Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:

“With the Apostle it has taught that princes ‘are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil,’ ordering the faithful ‘to be subject not only for wrath,’ because the prince ‘beareth not the sword as an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, but also for conscience’ sake,’ because in his office ‘he is God’s minister’ [Rom. 13:3 ff.].”

This is one of the strongest biblical parts of the passage. Paul does say that rulers are not meant to be “a terror to good works, but to the evil” (Romans 13:3). He does say that the ruler “beareth not the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4). He does say that the ruler is “the minister of God” in punishing evil. He does say that believers should be subject “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake” (Romans 13:5).

But Romans 13 proves the role of civil authority, not the earthly ruling role of the institutional Church. In fact, Romans 13 distinguishes the civil ruler precisely by the sword. The magistrate bears the sword. The Church does not. The state punishes evildoers by civil force. The Church does not spread the gospel by force. The ruler is God’s minister in the civil order. The Church is God’s witness in the spiritual order. If the Roman argument is that there are two powers on earth, then Romans 13 actually creates a problem for Rome: the earthly coercive power belongs to the magistrate, while the Church’s weapons are explicitly not carnal.

Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4). He does not say that the Church has a higher spiritual sword to wield over earthly society. He says the weapons are not carnal, “but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.” These strongholds are not cities conquered by ecclesiastical government. They are arguments, imaginations, and thoughts raised against the knowledge of God. Paul continues: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Church conquers by truth, not by law. It defeats falsehood by the Word, not by coercion. It brings men captive to Christ through the gospel, not through political dominion.

This is why a spiritual Church was never designed to rule as an earthly power. Its sword is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). Its armour is truth, righteousness, faith, salvation, and prayer. Its battlefield is not territory, taxation, civil administration, or political supremacy. Its battle is against sin, unbelief, false doctrine, spiritual darkness, and the powers of evil. Paul says, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12). Any church that forgets this begins to fight the wrong war with the wrong weapons.

Pius IX then gives an important limitation:

“Moreover, it itself has restricted this fear of princes to evil works, plainly excluding the same from the observance of the divine law.”

This is true as far as it goes. Christians must obey civil authority in secular matters, but not when civil authority commands disobedience to God. The apostles demonstrate this in Acts 5:29. Daniel demonstrates it when he continues to pray despite the king’s decree. The three Hebrew men demonstrate it when they refuse to worship the image of Nebuchadnezzar. The believer’s conscience belongs to God before it belongs to the state.

Yet this same principle must also be applied to ecclesiastical authority. If civil rulers must not be obeyed when they contradict divine law, then church rulers must not be obeyed when they contradict Scripture. Rome cannot use Acts 5:29 against Caesar while refusing its application against itself. The words “We ought to obey God rather than men” apply to all men, not only to secular rulers. They apply to priests, bishops, councils, popes, emperors, kings, and mobs. When any human authority, civil or ecclesiastical, commands what God has not commanded, binds what Christ has not bound, burdens conscience where Scripture has not burdened it, or places itself between the believer and Christ, the Christian must obey God rather than men.

That is why Scripture must remain the test. Isaiah says, “To the law and to the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20). The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see whether apostolic preaching was so (Acts 17:11). Paul warns that even if “we, or an angel from heaven” preach another gospel, he is accursed (Galatians 1:8). The authority of the messenger is tested by the truth of the message. No earthly office is exempt from the apostolic gospel.

Pius IX finally quotes Peter:

“Mindful of that which blessed Peter taught the faithful: ‘But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men’s things. But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name’ [I Pet. 4:15 f.].”

Again, the Scripture is true and important. Peter teaches that Christians must not suffer as criminals and then call it persecution. If a man suffers as a murderer, thief, evildoer, or busybody in other men’s matters, he has not glorified Christ. But if he suffers as a Christian, he should not be ashamed. He should glorify God.

This passage supports Christian holiness under pressure. It does not support the Roman idea of the Church as a second earthly power. In fact, 1 Peter points in the opposite direction. Peter writes to believers as “strangers and pilgrims” (1 Peter 2:11). He does not describe them as rulers of the earthly city. He tells them to submit, to endure grief, to suffer wrongfully, to follow Christ’s example, and to entrust themselves to God. He says of Christ, “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not” (1 Peter 2:23). This is the pattern of the Church. The Church follows the suffering Christ before it shares in His revealed glory. It does not take the posture of worldly rule in the age of witness.

Peter’s own self-description is equally important. He does not present himself as a monarch over the Church. He says, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder” (1 Peter 5:1). He tells elders to feed the flock, not as “lords over God’s heritage,” but as examples (1 Peter 5:2–3). Then he directs them to “the chief Shepherd” who shall appear (1 Peter 5:4). The chief Shepherd is Christ. The flock belongs to God. The elders serve. This is the apostolic model of spiritual oversight. It is pastoral, not imperial. It is exemplary, not coercive. It is accountable to Christ, not enthroned above the brethren.

The deepest issue in Denzinger 1841 is therefore not civil obedience itself. The deepest issue is the identity and mission of the Church. What is the Church according to Scripture? Is it an earthly power presiding over the city of God, or is it the spiritual body of Christ, living under His headship, bearing witness in the world, and waiting for the kingdom to be revealed?

The New Testament answer is consistent. The Church is the body of Christ. Paul writes, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Corinthians 12:27). The Church is the temple of God. “Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (1 Corinthians 3:16). The Church is a spiritual house. Peter writes, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5). The Church is a holy priesthood offering “spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). The Church is the household of God, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). None of these descriptions presents the Church as a political power ruling society. They present it as a spiritual people formed by union with Christ.

The Church’s birth also proves its nature. It was not born through imperial recognition, legal privilege, territorial sovereignty, or civil authority. It was born at Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was poured out and Peter preached Christ crucified and risen. The people were pricked in their heart and asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter did not direct them to an earthly institution claiming power over the city. He said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The Church began by the Word, repentance, baptism, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It did not begin as a ruling power. It began as a Spirit-filled witness.

The apostolic mission confirms this. Christ did not say, “Go ye therefore and rule all nations through an ecclesiastical power.” He said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Mark records the commission this way: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Luke records that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Luke 24:47). The Church’s commission is preaching, teaching, baptising, discipling, and witnessing. It is not the creation of a supernatural government over the earthly city.

This does not mean Christians have no public life. It does not mean believers may not speak truth to rulers. John the Baptist rebuked Herod. Paul reasoned before governors and kings. Christians may testify to righteousness, justice, mercy, truth, and judgment. They may call rulers to repentance. They may expose evil. They may obey lawful authority and disobey unlawful commands. But none of this turns the Church into an earthly ruling power. Prophetic witness is not political dominion. Moral testimony is not ecclesiastical sovereignty. Preaching to Caesar is not becoming Caesar.

The phrase “city of God” is also important. Pius IX says the Church “presides over the city of God.” But in Scripture the city of God is not identified with a Roman ecclesiastical jurisdiction ruling on earth. Hebrews says believers “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly” (Hebrews 11:16). It says, “Here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Hebrews 13:14). Galatians says, “Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:26). Revelation shows the holy city, new Jerusalem, “coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2). The city of God is heavenly in origin and eschatological in fullness. The Church belongs to it now by faith, but it does not possess it as an earthly political administration.

This is why the Roman argument is dangerous. It can begin with a biblical limitation on Caesar and end by enlarging the Church into the earthly manager of God’s kingdom. But the New Testament refuses both errors. Caesar is not God, and the Church is not Caesar. The state must not claim the soul, and the Church must not take up the sword. Civil rulers must remain under God, and spiritual leaders must remain under Christ. Christians must obey lawful authority, but their highest allegiance is to the Lord. The Church must speak God’s Word, but it must not transform spiritual authority into worldly dominion.

The logical dispute can be stated clearly. If Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, then His Church cannot be constituted as a worldly power without contradicting the nature of His kingdom. If the Church’s weapons are not carnal, then the Church cannot rule by the methods of earthly authority without abandoning apostolic warfare. If believers are strangers and pilgrims, then the Church cannot define itself as a governing earthly city without confusing pilgrimage with possession. If Christ alone is Head, Shepherd, High Priest, and Mediator, then no institution may stand as the earthly replacement for His living rule. If the apostles spread the faith through preaching and suffering, then later ecclesiastical dominion cannot be treated as the necessary form of apostolic Christianity.

Denzinger 1841 should therefore be disputed carefully but firmly. It contains true biblical material, but it uses that material in service of a broader Roman vision of ecclesiastical power. Christ’s words about Caesar teach that civil authority is limited by God. They do not teach that Rome receives the things that belong to God. Romans 13 teaches that civil rulers bear the sword for public order. It does not teach that the Church is a second earthly power. First Peter teaches Christians not to suffer as criminals, but to glorify God when they suffer for Christ. It does not teach that the Church should preside over the city of God as an earthly jurisdiction.

The New Testament directs the believer to a different vision. Christ reigns from heaven. The Spirit indwells the saints. The gospel gathers a people from every nation. The Church serves as a witness in the world. Its power is truth. Its weapon is the Word. Its priesthood is spiritual. Its sacrifices are praise, obedience, mercy, and faith. Its Head is Christ. Its hope is the appearing of the Lord. Its city is above.

For that reason, the Church must never confuse spiritual authority with earthly rule. The moment it does, it risks exchanging the cross for a throne before the time, witness for dominion, service for control, and the living headship of Christ for the machinery of an institution. Christ did not found His Church so that it would become another power on earth. He founded it so that, in the midst of earthly powers, it would bear witness to a kingdom not of this world, call men to repentance and faith, suffer without shame, obey God rather than men, and glorify the Father through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator, the true Head, and the everlasting King.

The Liberty of Christ’s Church or the Immunity of Rome’s Hierarchy? A Dispute Against Denzinger 1842

Denzinger 1842, taken from Pius IX’s encyclical Quod nunquam, addressed to the bishops of Prussia on February 5, 1875, is a natural continuation of the previous Roman claim concerning the “twofold power on earth.” Denzinger 1841 argued that two powers are to be distinguished on earth, the civil power governing secular affairs and the Church as a supernatural power presiding over the city of God. Denzinger 1842 then shows the practical consequence of that claim. If the Church is a second earthly power, divinely constituted and superior in spiritual matters, then civil laws that touch the Church’s constitution, bishops, or ministry can be declared invalid. This is why the passage is worth disputing. It does not merely defend the liberty of Christians to obey God rather than men. It identifies that liberty with the protection of the Roman ecclesiastical structure.

The passage begins:

“We intend to fulfill parts of Our duty through this letter, announcing to all to whom this matter pertains, and to the whole Catholic world, that those laws are invalid, namely, which are utterly opposed to the constitution of the divine Church.”

This first sentence contains both a true principle and a disputed assumption. The true principle is that no human law can morally bind the conscience against God. If a king, parliament, emperor, court, or magistrate commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, the believer must obey God rather than man. This is not a Roman doctrine first. It is apostolic Christianity. When the rulers commanded the apostles not to teach in the name of Jesus, Peter and the other apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). No civil power may silence the gospel, forbid prayer, command idolatry, compel sin, or take the place of God over the conscience.

But Pius IX’s statement goes beyond that simple apostolic principle. He does not merely say that unjust civil laws must be disobeyed when they command sin or forbid obedience to Christ. He says that certain laws are “invalid” because they are “utterly opposed to the constitution of the divine Church.” The decisive question is therefore this: what is “the constitution of the divine Church”? Is it the spiritual body of Christ, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone? Or is it the later Roman hierarchical system of bishops under papal supremacy, defended as though its institutional structure were identical with the will of Christ?

Scripture teaches that Christ has a Church. Scripture teaches that this Church belongs to Him. Scripture teaches that it is holy, spiritual, redeemed, and indwelt by the Holy Ghost. But Scripture does not teach that the liberty of Christ’s Church is the same thing as the legal immunity of the Roman hierarchy. The New Testament does not present the Church as a clerical corporation whose officers stand above civil consequence by virtue of a papal constitution. It presents the Church as the flock of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the household of faith, and a spiritual house made of living stones.

Paul writes that believers are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). Peter writes, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5). The Church’s constitution, according to the apostles, is not Rome, papal supremacy, clerical privilege, or episcopal immunity. Its foundation is Christ and the apostolic witness. Its life is the Holy Ghost. Its priesthood is spiritual. Its Head is in heaven. Its authority is the Word of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel, make disciples, suffer faithfully, and bear witness to a kingdom not of this world.

Pius IX continues:

“For, the Lord of holy things did not place the powerful of this world over the bishops in these matters which pertain to the holy ministry, but blessed Peter to whom he commended not only His lambs but also His sheep to be fed [cf. John 21:16, 17].”

This sentence is the heart of the Roman argument. Pius IX contrasts “the powerful of this world” with “blessed Peter.” He says that Christ did not place secular rulers over bishops in matters of holy ministry, but Peter, to whom Christ commended His lambs and sheep. The argument depends on John 21:16–17, where Jesus says to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” But the Roman conclusion does not follow from the biblical text.

John 21 is a restoration passage. Peter had denied Christ three times, and Christ graciously restored him with a threefold command of love and service. “Feed my lambs.” “Feed my sheep.” “Feed my sheep.” This proves that Peter was restored to pastoral and apostolic ministry. It proves that Christ entrusted Peter with the care of His flock. It does not prove that Peter became an earthly monarch over all bishops. It does not prove that Peter’s authority was transferred to the Roman Pontiff. It does not prove that bishops are protected from civil law by a Petrine jurisdiction. It does not prove that the Roman hierarchy is the constitution of the divine Church.

The language of feeding is pastoral, not imperial. Shepherds feed, guard, guide, and care for the flock. They do not own the flock. They do not replace Christ. They do not become lords over the conscience. Peter himself makes this clear. When Peter later exhorts elders, he does not write as a supreme monarch commanding an inferior caste of bishops. He says, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder” (1 Peter 5:1). He tells them, “Feed the flock of God which is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). He warns them not to act “as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3). Then he directs them to Christ: “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Peter 5:4).

This is devastating to the Roman use of Peter. Peter’s own teaching does not support a clerical dominion. Peter calls himself a fellow elder. He says the flock belongs to God. He forbids lordship over God’s heritage. He names Christ, not himself, as the Chief Shepherd. Therefore, John 21 cannot be used honestly to create a system in which Peter, and then Rome after him, becomes the governing earthly principle over all bishops and all believers. Christ’s command to feed His sheep was a call to pastoral service, not a charter for hierarchical immunity.

Pius IX then adds:

“And so by no worldly power, however elevated, can they be deprived of their episcopal office ‘whom the Holy Ghost hath placed as bishops to rule the Church of God’ [cf. Acts 20:28].”

Again, the passage quotes Scripture, but the Roman conclusion exceeds the apostolic text. Acts 20:28 says, in the words of Paul to the elders of Ephesus, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” Paul is speaking to local elders. He is warning them to watch themselves and the flock. He is not teaching papal supremacy. He is not describing a Roman constitutional order. He is not saying that bishops possess an untouchable office beyond all civil consequence. He is charging local overseers to feed “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

The emphasis in Acts 20 is not clerical privilege, but solemn accountability. Paul warns the elders that “grievous wolves” shall enter in among them, “not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). He warns that even “of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). This means that bishops, elders, and overseers are not automatically safe because of their office. Their office does not place them beyond examination. Their position does not guarantee purity. Paul specifically warns that corruption may arise from among the overseers themselves.

This is the opposite of the spirit of institutional immunity. The apostolic concern is not that bishops must be protected from every worldly interference as though office itself were holy beyond challenge. The apostolic concern is that overseers must be faithful to Christ, faithful to the Word, watchful over themselves, and protective of the flock. If they become wolves, their office does not sanctify their error. If they speak perverse things, their title does not make those things true. If they draw away disciples after themselves, they must be resisted, not shielded.

The Church of God was purchased with Christ’s blood, not with episcopal office. That phrase in Acts 20:28 is the centre of the verse. “The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” The Church belongs to Christ because He bought it. Its liberty is grounded in His redemption, not in the legal status of bishops. Its holiness is grounded in His sacrifice, not in hierarchical rank. Its government must remain subject to His Word, because He alone purchased it with His blood.

Pius IX then writes:

“Moreover, let those who are hostile to you know that in refusing to pay to Caesar what belongs to God, you are not going to bring any injury to royal authority, nor to detract anything from it; for it is written: ‘We ought to obey God, rather than men’ [Acts 5:29].”

This is the most biblically powerful part of the passage, and it must be treated seriously. There are times when refusing Caesar is obedience to God. There are times when civil authority overreaches. There are times when the state claims what belongs only to the Lord. When Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children, they feared God and disobeyed the king’s command. When Nebuchadnezzar commanded worship of the golden image, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused. When Darius’ decree forbade prayer, Daniel prayed as before. When the rulers commanded the apostles to stop preaching Christ, they answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Therefore, the dispute is not with Acts 5:29. The dispute is with Rome’s use of Acts 5:29. The apostles used that principle to continue preaching Christ when forbidden by men. They did not use it to defend a later clerical structure as the divine constitution of the Church. They did not say, “We ought to obey Peter’s successors rather than men.” They did not say, “We ought to protect episcopal office from all civil interference.” They said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” The authority remains God’s. The obedience is owed to God. The conflict is between divine command and human command.

This distinction is essential. The things that belong to God do not automatically belong to the institutional Church. Christ said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). He did not say, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto Rome the things that are God’s.” God’s portion remains God’s. The conscience belongs to God. Worship belongs to God. The soul belongs to God. Judgment belongs to God. Salvation belongs to God. The Church serves these holy things by preaching, teaching, baptising, discipling, and guarding the apostolic doctrine. But the Church does not become the owner of God’s rights.

This is where Rome’s argument becomes dangerous. It can begin with a true defence of conscience against the state, but then transfer the rights of God to the rights of the hierarchy. It can begin by saying Caesar must not rule the gospel, but end by saying the bishops must not be touched because they embody the divine constitution of the Church. It can begin with spiritual liberty and end with institutional privilege. But Scripture does not allow the liberty of Christ’s Church to be confused with the immunity of Rome’s officers.

Paul makes the nature of true spiritual ministry clear when he says, “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy” (2 Corinthians 1:24). That is apostolic.

Even Paul, an apostle directly called by Christ, refuses to describe his ministry as dominion over the faith of believers. He is a servant, a witness, a steward, a preacher, and a helper of their joy. He can command in the Lord, rebuke error, and defend the gospel, but he does not own their faith. If an apostle does not claim dominion over faith, how can a later ecclesiastical system claim that its hierarchy is the protected constitution of the divine Church?

Pius IX concludes this excerpt:

“And at the same time let them know that everyone of you is prepared to give tribute and obedience to Caesar, not for wrath, but for conscience [cf. Rom. 13:5 f.] in those matters which are under civil authority and power.”

This is again partly true. Romans 13 teaches ordinary civil obedience. Paul says, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake” (Romans 13:5). He also says, “For this cause pay ye tribute also” (Romans 13:6). Christians should pay what they owe. They should not be rebellious, dishonest, violent, or lawless. They should honour rightful authority in civil matters. They should obey lawful commands, pay tribute, and live peaceably where obedience to God is not compromised.

But Romans 13 does not establish the Roman hierarchy as an untouchable spiritual jurisdiction. It teaches that civil rulers are God’s ministers in the civil order. They bear the sword against evildoers. That is the role of the magistrate, not the Church. The Church does not bear the sword. The Church does not conquer by force. The Church does not rule by coercion. Paul says, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4). The Church’s sword is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). Its power is truth. Its calling is witness. Its victory is faith. Its Lord is Christ.

Therefore, if Rome appeals to Romans 13 to recognise Caesar’s proper authority, it must also recognise the limits of ecclesiastical authority. Caesar must not claim the gospel. But bishops must not claim Christ’s headship. Caesar must not rule conscience. But the hierarchy must not rule conscience either. Caesar must not command sin. But the Church must not bind what Christ has not bound. The state must remain under God, and the Church must remain under Christ. All human authority is limited, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

The New Testament never presents Christ’s Church as a worldly institution designed to rule society through protected offices. Christ’s kingdom is real, but He said plainly, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). If His kingdom were of this world, His servants would fight. That means the nature of His kingdom is different from the nature of earthly power. Earthly kingdoms secure themselves by law, force, office, privilege, and punishment. Christ’s kingdom advances by the preaching of the gospel, the work of the Holy Ghost, the witness of the saints, the endurance of suffering, and the power of truth.

This is why Christ warned His disciples against imitating worldly authority. “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,” He said, “and they that are great exercise authority upon them” (Matthew 20:25). Then He added, “But it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:26). The Church was never designed to become a sacred version of worldly dominion. Its leaders are servants. Its shepherds are examples. Its ministers are stewards. Its apostles are witnesses. Its members are brethren. Christ alone is the Master. Christ alone is the Head. Christ alone is the Chief Shepherd.

This does not mean the Church must submit to wicked civil commands. It must not. The apostles did not stop preaching when forbidden. The martyrs did not worship idols when commanded. The faithful must not surrender conscience to the state. But the apostolic answer to persecution was not to create an ecclesiastical power above the civil power. The apostolic answer was to obey God, preach Christ, endure suffering, and glorify God. Peter writes, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Peter 4:16). He does not say, “Let him claim the legal immunity of the hierarchy.” He says, “Let him glorify God.”

The liberty of the Church in Scripture is therefore spiritual before it is institutional. The Church is free because Christ has redeemed it. It is free because the Son makes men free. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). It is free because believers are no longer slaves of sin. It is free because they have boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus. It is free because the Spirit dwells in them. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). It is free because its Head is seated in heaven, far above all principality and power. This liberty is not the same thing as clerical immunity, papal jurisdiction, or episcopal privilege.

The Roman claim in Denzinger 1842 therefore needs careful separation. If Pius IX means that no civil power may command the Church to deny Christ, cease preaching the gospel, worship idols, betray Scripture, or sin against God, then Scripture agrees. But if he means that the later Roman hierarchy itself is the divine constitution of the Church, and that bishops cannot be touched by civil law because they stand under Peter in a protected ecclesiastical order, then Scripture does not clearly teach this. That conclusion must be imported from later Roman development.

The apostles never built their doctrine of the Church around protected episcopal office. They built it around Christ. Christ is the foundation. Christ is the cornerstone. Christ is the Head. Christ is the Shepherd and Bishop of souls. Christ is the High Priest. Christ is the Mediator. Christ is the Lord of conscience. Christ is the King. The Church has liberty because it belongs to Him, not because its officers form an earthly power above ordinary accountability.

The distinction is not small. A spiritual Church can resist Caesar without becoming Caesar. A spiritual Church can obey God rather than men without claiming worldly dominion. A spiritual Church can suffer unjustly without turning suffering into a legal argument for institutional privilege. A spiritual Church can preach to rulers without ruling over them. A spiritual Church can honour bishops who faithfully shepherd the flock while still testing all things by Scripture. A spiritual Church can recognise pastoral office without making that office the centre of divine authority.

Denzinger 1842 is therefore worth disputing as a continuation because it reveals how Rome uses biblical texts about conscience, obedience, and pastoral ministry to defend a much larger system of ecclesiastical power. The passage quotes John 21, Acts 20, Acts 5, and Romans 13, but the New Testament context points away from Roman institutional immunity and back to Christ’s spiritual Church. John 21 restores Peter to feed Christ’s sheep. It does not enthrone Rome. Acts 20 charges local elders to guard the flock purchased by Christ’s blood. It does not create an untouchable episcopal order. Acts 5 commands obedience to God rather than men. It does not transfer God’s rights to the hierarchy. Romans 13 teaches civil obedience in civil matters. It does not make the Church a rival earthly power.

The liberty of Christ’s Church is precious, but it must be defined by Christ and His apostles, not by later Roman claims. The Church is not free because it is a second power on earth. It is free because it belongs to a kingdom not of this world. It is not safe because bishops are beyond the reach of earthly authority. It is safe when it abides in Christ, obeys Scripture, walks in the Spirit, and refuses both civil tyranny and ecclesiastical domination. It does not need to become an earthly power to resist Caesar. It needs only to remain faithful to the Lord who said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” and to the apostles who said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”