In 1301, tensions between Philip and Boniface 􀀀ared uponce again with the arrest of the bishop of Pamiers,Bernard Sais¬set. Boniface had sent Saisset toFrance to protest continuing abuses of the Churchand to urge Philip to apply the revenues raised fromtaxing the Church to a crusade. But the bishop haddone more than that—he had publicly slandered theking and, indeed, France. In response, Philip hadhim arrested and charged with treason. The problemfrom Philip's perspective was that, according tocanon law, Saisset was under papal jurisdiction andthus not liable to prosecution in civil court. IfPhilip were to have any chance of bringing Saissetsuccessfully to trial, he would 􀀀rst have to obtainfrom the pope a “canonical degradation” that wouldremove the bishop from his see and strip him of hisclerical immunities. In pursuit of thisdispensation, the king sent a delegation to Rome tomeet with Boniface. Concerned as always with theliberties of the Church, however, and no doubt stillsmarting from the humiliation su􀀀ered during hislast dispute with Philip, Boniface not only refusedthe delegation's request but demanded that Philiprelease the bishop immediately. Philip agreed tothis and permitted Saisset to return to Romeunjudged, but did so too late to prevent thepublication of two papal bulls directed against him.In the 􀀀rst, Salvatormundi, Boniface revoked the concessionsmade in Esti de statu.In the second, Ascultafili, he asserted the pope's authority tojudge kings, enumerated the Church's grievancesagainst Philip, and summoned France's principalecclesiastics to Rome to judge the French king anddiscuss means of reforming him and his kingdom.

O nce again, Philip and his supporters reactedvigorously to what they perceived to be Boniface'swholly illegitimate attempt to assert papalsuperiority over the French king in temporalmatters. In reality, of course, those parts ofAsculta fili thattouched on the distribution of power between thespiritual and temporal realms were not particularlynovel. Simply put, while it asserted absolute papalauthority in the spiritual realm, it proclaimed onlya quali􀀀ed papal author¬ity to exercise temporaljurisdiction in cases where sin was involved(ratione peccati)—adoctrine 􀀀rst made explicit in Innocent III'sdecretal Pervenerabilem and adhered to by allsubsequent popes.