[RobbyS]

I repeat, where's the falsehood in this, and I mean theological falsehood?. No doubt that he was power-hungry and ruthless--especially in his treatment of Celestine V, whom he bullied into resigning, and then harried to death in fear that his own election somehow be nullified by his many enemies. The bull was one of several that he issued in an effort to shore up his temporal authority, and the most extreme. But look at the whole argument not just the concluding statement. He is asserting the supremacy of the spiritual authority over the secular authority. That he has, for instance, the right to use the interdict to bring kings to heel, even though this applies to every subject as well as the king. Let us not forget to whom the bull was addressed, and let us not forget that this may was a jurist by trade, and his whole tone is that of a Court trying to force the executive authority to obey.

[malakhi]

I repeat, where's the falsehood in this, and I mean theological falsehood?

If you cannot see the glaring falsehood of a man proclaiming that other men must be subject to him in order to avoid eternal damnation, then nothing I say to you is going to convince you otherwise. Perhaps, for the benefit of those of us who just don't 'get it', you can point out where the theological truth is in this?

He is asserting the supremacy of the spiritual authority over the secular authority.

I don't think 'spiritual authority' has anything to do with this, aside from its use as a cover for the pope's assertion of his own 'secular' authority.