The Local Church of Rome

According to the divine constitution of Our Lord's kingdom on earth, membership in that kingdom, the universal Church militant, normally involves membership in some local or individual brotherhood within the universal Church. These individual brotherhoods within the Catholic Church are of two kinds. First there are the various local Churches, the associations of the faithful in the different individual regions of the earth. Then there are the religiones, assemblies of the faithful organized unice et ex integro for the attainment of perfection on the part of those who are admitted into them. According to the Apostolic Constitution Provida mater ecclesia, "the canonical discipline of the state of perfection as a public state was so wisely regulated by the Church that, in the case of clerical religious Institutes, in those matters in general which concern the clerical life of the religious, the Institutes took the place of dioceses, and membership in a religious society was equivalent to the incardination of a cleric in a diocese."[1]

Among these individual brotherhoods that live within the universal Church of God on earth, the local Church of Rome manifestly occupies a unique position. Theologians of an earlier day stressed these prerogatives of the Roman Church quite strongly. Unfortunately, however, in our own time the manuals of sacred theology, considered as a group, dwell almost exclusively upon the nature and the characteristics of the Church universal, without explaining the teaching about the local Church at any length. Consistently with this trend, they have chosen to teach about the Holy Father in relation to the Church throughout the entire world, and have given comparatively little attention to his function precisely as the head of the Christian Church in the Eternal City.

Thus we and the people whom God has commissioned us to instruct may be prone to forget that it is precisely by reason of the fact that he presides over this individual local congregation that the Holy Father is the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the entire Church militant. The Christian community of Rome was and remains Peter's Church. The man who governs that community with apostolic power in the name of Christ is Peter's successor, and is thus Our Lord's vicar in the rule of the Church universal.

It is definitely the more common teaching among the scholastic theologians that the office of the visible head of the entire Church militant is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of Rome, and that this absolutely permanent attachment exists by reason of the divine constitution of the Church itself. In other words, an imposing majority of Catholic theologians who have written on this particular subject have manifested the belief that no human agency, not even the Holy Father himself, could render the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church universal the prerogative of some episcopal see other than that of Rome or otherwise separate that primacy from the office and the essential prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. According to this widely accepted teaching, the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides over the local Christian community of the Eternal City.

During even its earliest stage of development, scholastic ecclesiology taught expressly that when St. Peter established himself as the head of the local Christian community in Rome, he was acting in accordance with God's own direction. Thus Alvaro Pelayo teaches that the Prince of the Apostles transferred his See from Antioch to Rome "iubente Domino," and that the location of the principal seat of the Christian priesthood in the "caput et domina totius mundi" was to be attributed to Divine Providence.[2] A century later, the Cardinal John de Turrecremata insisted that a special command of Christ had made Rome the primatial See of the Catholic Church.[3] Turrecremata argued that this action on the part of Our Lord made it impossible for even the Sovereign Pontiff himself to detach the primacy from Peter's own local Church in the Eternal City. Later Thomas de Vio Cardinal Cajetan taught that St. Peter had established his See at Rome by Our Lord's express command.[4]

The Counter-Reformation theologians took up this question in much greater detail. Dominic Soto sponsored the teaching, previously attacked by Turrecremata, to the effect that the fixing of the primatial See at Rome was attributable only to St. Peter, in his capacity as the head of the universal Church.[5] Thus Soto held that any one of St. Peter's successors in the Supreme Pontificate could, if he so chose, transfer the primatial See to some other city, in exactly the same way and with exactly the same authority St. Peter had used in bringing the primacy from Antioch to Rome.

Soto's solution of this question never obtained any considerable foothold in scholastic ecclesiology. His contemporary, the ever-truculent Melchoir Cano, derided the contention that, since there is no scriptural evidence in favor of any divine command that the primatial See should have been established in Rome, St. Peter's transfer from Antioch to Rome must be attributed only to St. Peter's own choice.[6] He employed the occasion of this teaching to bring out his own teaching on the importance of tradition as a source of revelation and as a locus theologicus.

The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important development in St. Robert Bellarmine's Controversies. St. Robert devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari. His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.[7]

In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as "a pious and most probable teaching" the opinion that "Peter's cathedra could not be taken away from Rome,"[8] and that, for this reason, the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert appealed to the doctrine that "God Himself has ordered Peter's Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome."[9]

St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in Rome might have been merely a kind of "inspiration" from God, rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."[10]

Gregory of Valentia, however, taught that Soto's opinion on this subject was singularis nec vero satis tuta.[11] Adam Tanner believed the thesis that "the supreme authority to govern the Church has been inseparably joined to the Roman See by direct and divine institution and law," though not a doctrine of faith, was still something which could not be denied absque temeritate.[12] In his Tractatus de fide Suarez taught that it seemed more probable and "pious" to say that St. Peter had joined the primacy over the entire Church militant to the See of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own precept and will. Suarez believed, however, that St. Peter received no such order from Christ prior to the Ascension.[13] The outstanding seventeenth century theologians, Francis Sylvius and John Wiggers also subscribed to the opinion that the primacy was permanently attached to the local Church of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own command.[14]

The status of this thesis was further improved when Pope Benedict XIV inserted it into his De synodo diocesana.[15] Pope Benedict believed that St. Peter had chosen the Roman Church either at Our Lord's command, or on his own authority, acting under divine inspiration or guidance. Billuart taught that Rome was chosen as a result of Our Lord's own direct instruction.[16] John Perrone taught that no human authority could transfer the primacy over the universal Church from the See of Rome.[17]

In more recent times interest in this particular thesis has centered around the question of the manner in which God had joined the primacy to the episcopate of the local Church of Rome. Some, like Dominic Palmieri, consider it probable that St. Peter received a divinely revealed mandate to establish his See permanently at Rome before he assumed the leadership of the local Church of the Eternal City."[18] Others, like Reginald Schultes, believe such an antecedent command most unlikely, but insist that an explicit divine mandate to this effect was probably given to St. Peter prior to his martyrdom.[19] Still others, like Cardinal Franzelin and Bishops Felder and D'Herbigny, give it as their opinion that St. Peter's final choice of Rome was brought about by a movement of divine grace or inspiration of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of any transfer of the primatial See from Rome at any subsequent time.[20] Cardinal Billot taught that Rome held its position dispositione divina, and that this thesis, though not yet defined, was unquestionably capable of definition.[21] It is interesting to note that Gerard Paris wrote that more probably the primacy over the universal Church was joined to the episcopate of Rome iure divino, saltem indirecto.[22] The possibility of such an indirect divine mandate has not been generally considered in the recent literature of scholastic ecclesiology.

An overwhelming majority of theologians since the Vatican Council has upheld the thesis that, in one way or another, the primacy is permanently attached to the local Church of Rome iure divino. Within this majority we find such outstanding ecclesiologists as Cardinal Camillus Mazzella, Bonal, Tepe, Crosta, De Groot, Hurter, Dorsch, Manzoni, Bainvel, Tanquerey, Herve, Michelitsch, Van Noort, and Lercher.[23] Despite the preponderance of testimony in favor of this thesis, however, Saiz Ruiz and Calcagno reject the theological arguments usually adduced in its favor, while Dieckmann refers to the question as subject to controversy.[24] Granderath makes it evident that the Vatican Council had no intention of condemning Dominic Soto's teaching in its Constitution Pastor aeternus.[25]

As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and indefectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal Church militant as Christ's vicar on earth is necessarily the head of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church over which he could rule by divine authority.

The thesis on the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome has received rather considerable development in the literature of scholastic ecclesiology. Saiz Ruiz is of the opinion that, if the city of Rome were destroyed, it would be sufficient to have the Sovereign Pontiffs retain the title of Bishop of Rome "sicut hodie episcopi in partibus."[26] The terminology of most of the other modern and classical theologians who have dealt with this question, however, involves a rejection of this contention. The bishops in partibus infidelium, properly called titular bishops since Pope Leo XIII decreed this change in terminology in his apostolic letter In supremo, of June 10, 1882, have no jurisdiction whatever over the Catholics of the locality where their ancient churches were situated. No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholastic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had particular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City.

Although some theologians, like Suarez and, in our own time Mazzella and Manzoni, hold it as probable that the material city of Rome will be protected by God's providence and will never be completely destroyed,[27] most of the others hold that this destruction is a possibility. They maintain, however, that the destruction of the buildings and even the complete uninhabitability of the city itself would in no way necessitate the destruction of the Roman local Church. Older writers like St. Robert Bellarmine were convinced that at one time the actual city of Rome was entirely without inhabitants, while the local Church, with its clergy and its bishop, continued to live.[28]

From time to time heretics have pointed to the seventeenth and the eighteenth chapters of the Apocalypse as indication that ultimately there would be no followers of Christ within the city of Rome. St. Robert admitted such a possibility at the end of the world, but pointed out the traditional interpretation of this section of the Apocalypse, particularly that popularized by St. Augustine, had nothing to do with the Roman Church during the period immediately preceding the general judgment.[29] Francis Sylvius demonstrated that any application of this section of the Apocalypse to the Roman Church was merely fanciful.[30] Modern theologians, Franzelin and Crosta in particular, have followed this procedure.[31]

Another highly important and sometimes overlooked prerogative of the local Roman Church is its infallibility. By reason of its peculiar place in the universal Church militant, this individual congregation has always been and will always be protected from corporate heresy by God's providential power. The local Church of Rome, with its bishop, its presbyterium, its clergy and its laity will exist until the end of time secure in the purity of its faith. St. Cyprian alluded to this charism when he spoke of the Catholic Romans as those "ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum."[32]

This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.

It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.

Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]

Since it is true that the local Church of Rome is infallible in its faith, and that the Holy Father is the only authoritative teacher of the local Church of Rome, it follows that he teaches infallibly when he definitely settles a question about faith or morals so as to fix or determine the belief of that local Church. Since the local Church of Rome is an effective standard for all the other local Churches, and for the universal kingdom of God on earth, in matters of belief, the Holy Father must be considered as addressing the entire Church militant, at least indirectly, when he speaks directly and definitively to the local congregation of the Eternal City. Thus it is perfectly possible to have a definition of the type described in the Vatican Council's Constitution Pastor aeternus, one in which the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, "exercising his function as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians" and so "according to his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine about faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,"[38] precisely when he speaks to determine the faith of the local Church of Rome.

It is a matter of manifest Catholic doctrine that the episcopate of the local Church of Rome and the visible primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church militant are not actually two episcopates, but constitute only one episcopal function. Today, unfortunately, we are prone to imagine that the headship of the Christian community in the city on the Tiber is something hardly more than incidental to the Sovereign Pontificate. Indicative of this tendency is the declaration of a recent and well-written book about the Holy Year, a statement to the effect that "One of the Holy Father's titles is Bishop of Rome."[39]

Such a statement is not erroneous, but it might well be considered somewhat misleading. "Bishop of Rome" is not merely one of the titles of the Holy Father, it is actually the name of the office which constitutes him as St. Peter's successor and as the Vicar of Christ on earth. And, when the same volume speaks of "the return of the Apostolic See to Rome,"[40]" with reference to the end of the residence of the Popes in Avignon, it is using a definitely bad terminology. The Apostolic See, the cathedra Petri, never left the Eternal City. The men who ruled the Church from Avignon were just as truly the Bishops of Rome as any others among the successors of St. Peter. It is precisely by reason of the inseparable residence within it of the Cathedra Petri that the local Church of Rome possesses its extraordinary privileges and charisms within the Church militant.

1 The Provida mater ecclesia was issued on Feb. 2, 1947. The translation of this passage is that of Bouscaren in his Canon Law Digest: Supplement through 1948 (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1949), p. 66.

2 Cf. De statu et planctu ecclesiae, I, a. 40, in Iung, Un Franciscain, theologien du pouvoir pontifical au XIV' siecle: Alvaro Pelayo, Eveque et Penitencier de Jean XXII (Paris: Vrin, 1931), p. III.

4 Cf. Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii, c. 13, in Pollet's edition of Cajetan's Scripta theologica (Rome: Angelicum, 1935), 1, 299.

6 Cf. De locis theologicis, Lib. VI, c. 8, in the Opera theologica (Rome: Filiziani, 1900), II, 44.

7 Cf. De controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos (Cologne, 1620), I, col. 811.

14 Cf. Sylvius' De praecipuis fidei nostrae orthodoxae controversiis cum nostris haereticis, Lib. IV, q. I, a. 6, in D'Elbecque's edition of Sylvius' Opera omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 297; Wigger's Commentaria de virtutibus theologicis (Louvain, 1689), p. 63.

15 Cf. De synodo diocesana, Lib. II, c. I, in Migne's Theologiae cursus completus (Paris, 1840), XXV, col. 825.

16 Cf. Billuart's Tractatus de regulis fidei, diss. 4, a. 4, in the Summa Sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata sive cursus theologiae juxta mentem Divi Thomae (Paris: LeCoffre, 1904), V, 171 f.

17 Cf. Perrone's Tractatus de locis theologicis, pars I, c. 2, in his Praelectiones theologicae in compendium redactae (Paris, 1861), 1, 135.

18 Cf. Palmieri's Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomena de ecclesia (Prado, 1891), pp. 416 ff.

19 Cf. Schultes' De ecclesia catholica praelectiones apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux, 1931), pp. 450 ff.

20 Cf. Franzelin's Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887), pp. 210 ff.; Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1923), II, 120 f.; and D'Herbigny's Theologia. de ecclesia (Paris: Beauchesne, 1927), II, 213 ff.

21 Cf. Billot's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: Gregorian University, 1927), 1, 613 f.

22 Cf. Paris' Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Turin: Marietti, 1929), pp. 217 f.

23 Cf. Card. Mazzella's De religione et ecclesia praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, 6th edition (Prado, 1905), pp. 731 ff.; Bonal's Institutiones theologiae ad usum seminariorum, 16th edition (Toulouse, 1887), 1, 422 ff.; Tepe's Institutiones theologicae in usum scholarum (Paris: Lethielleux, 1894), 1, 307 f.; Crosta's Theologia dogmatica in usum scholarum, 3rd edition (Gallarate: Lazzati, 1932), 1, 309 ff.; De Groot's Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica, 3rd edition (Regensburg, 1906), pp. 575 ff.; Hurter's Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 2nd edition (Innsbruck, 1878), 1, 332; Dorsch's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1928), II, 229; Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Turin: Berruti, 1928), 1, 263; Bainvel's De ecclesia Christi (Paris: Beauchesne, 1925), p. 201; Tanquerey's Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, 24th edition (Paris: Desclee, 1937), p. 492; Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition (Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1934), 1, 401; Michelitsch's Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis, 3rd edition (Vienna: Styria, 1925), p. 378; Van Noort's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Hilversum, Holland: Brand, 1932), p. 188; and Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1934), 1, 378 ff.

24 Cf. Saiz Ruiz, Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis (Burgos, 1906), pp. 430 ff.; Calcagno, Theologia fundamentalis (Naples: D'Auria, 1948), pp. 229 f,; and Dieckmann, De ecclesia tractatus historico-dogmatici (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925), 1, 437 f.

25 Cf. Granderath, Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecumenici Concilli Vaticani ex ipsis eius actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1892), pp. 137 ff. Although Soto's teaching has not been condemned, the doctrine according to which the primacy could be taken away from Rome by the action of a general council or of the populace as a whole was proscribed by Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. Cf. DB. 1735.

27 Cf. Suarez, op. cit., p. 198; Mazzella, op. cit., p. 738; Manzoni, op. cit., p. 264.

31 Cf. Franzelin, op. cit., pp. 213 f.; Crosta, op. cit., p. 312, quotes Franzelin on this question. It is interesting to note that the doctrines of these scholastics coincide with the teachings of the exegete Allo on this subject. Cf. his Saint Jean: L'Apocalypse, 3rd edition (Paris: Gabalda, 1933), pp. 264 ff.

34 Cf. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (Louvain, 1530), lib. 4, c. 3, pp. 549 ff.

39 Cf. Fenichell and Andrews, The Vatican and Holy Year (New York: Halcyon House, 1950). p. 89.

Pope John Paul II after his Inauguration Around his neck he wears a lamb's wool pallium instead of a papal tiara. He controversially did not take the Papal Oath either.
In 1978, one of Pope John Paul I's first decisions on his election was to dispense with the millennium-old papal coronation and the use of a papal tiara. Though perhaps understandable, given Pope Paul's gesture a decade earlier (Paul VI never wore a Triple Tiara again) it still caused some surprise. Instead the new pope was installed in a new low key 'inauguration' ceremony, so low key indeed that he had it moved to the morning so as not to disrupt Italian soccer coverage, which would normally be shown in the afternoon.
After Pope John Paul I's sudden death less than a month later, the new pope, John Paul II, opted to continue with John Paul I's precedent of replacing the papal coronation with a low key inauguration. Though unworn, the tiara remains the symbol of the papacy, and still features on the coat of arms of popes, including the uncrowned popes John Paul I and John Paul II. With the disappearance of the papal coronation, the British Monarch now remains the only major monarch to receive a coronation. (Fact-Index: Papal Tiara)

I'll take the liberty of inserting a few passages from Fr. Harrison's article:

My critic’s second point regards my contention that since none of the post-conciliar Popes has been considered a heretic by any more than “a tiny minority of Catholics — indeed, not even one of the thousands of Successors of the Apostles now in communion with Rome!” — it follows that none of them can fairly be considered as having fallen into public heresy or defection from the faith. Fr. Cekada counters that “no special number of witnesses is required for heresy to qualify as public”. But I never said that a “special number” is required. For any ecclesiastical delict (crime) to be canonically “public”, the important thing is not absolute numbers, but knowledge of the action, and of its criminal character, on the part of a majority of persons — and they must be reliable persons — within the relevant community. The canonists Vermeersch & Creusen, for instance, in commenting on the definition of “public” as divulgatum (“commonly known”) in c. 2197 §1 (1917 Code of Canon Law), state: “Divulgatio is knowledge which has spread among the greater part(in maiore parte)of the town, neighbourhood, college, etc.”, noting that the character, as well as the number, of the witnesses needs to be considered (vol. III, p. 221, my emphasis). C. Augustine cites approvingly other authors who maintain that knowledge of a crime on the part of “at least six persons” would be “public” in, “for instance, a religious house of 10 or 12 members”. Augustine adds (in agreement with Vermeersch & Creusen): “Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime” (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law [St. Louis & London: Herder, 1924] p. 16). T. L. Bouscaren & A. C. Ellis, in one of the best-known English Canon Law commentaries, comment similarly on divulgatum as the criterion of “public” in c. 2197 §1: “‘Commonly known’ (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community” (p. 858, my emphasis).
Now, in the case of any hypothetical heresy on the part of a Pope, what would the relevant ‘community’ be? Taking into account what the approved authors say about the character, as well as the number, of the witnesses, it would have to be something less than the whole Church; for by no means all Catholics are well qualified to judge whether a given proposition is heretical or not. In this case it would not be a question of a Catholic’s personal moral integrity, but rather, of his expertise in being able to distinguish orthodox from unorthodox doctrine. That is why I maintain that the remaining Successors of the Apostles in union with Rome would be the relevant ‘community’. For they are the only body who have been promised ex officio divine assistance in being able to discern corruptions of the true faith. I suppose it might be argued that a representative group within the Episcopate — for instance, the College of Cardinals or the presidents of Episcopal Conferences — would be an adequate “community” for present purposes. Perhaps. But in any case, no appeal to any such alternative body would serve the purposes of sedevacantism. For, far from there ever having been a majority of the bishops — or cardinals or Episcopal Conference presidents — who claimed that a post-conciliar Pope has committed the crime of formal heresy, not one bishop in good standing with Rome has made any such claim: not even Archbishop Lefebvre before the 1988 consecrations.
Fr. Cekada cites the canonist McDevitt to the effect that “[I]f even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith”, the offence would be public in the sense of canon 2197 §1. I suspect what McDevitt has in mind is the kind of “defection” which in itself would be so obvious and indisputable that any reasonably intelligent Catholic who did witness it would be left in no doubt as to its heretical character: e.g., a Catholic accepting re-baptism in a Mormon temple. But heresy is by no means always so easily recognizable. Fr. Cekada asserts that “if the Vatican Press Office hands out your heretical declarations, it is reasonable to assume your heresy is public”. But even supposing some such declaration is heretical, its distribution by the Vatican, as such, only makes the heresy materially public. As long as it is not recognized as heretical by a majority of the relevant community, it is still “formally occult” in terms of c. 2197 §4. And as the approved authors point out, a formally occult crime cannot be classed as “public” for practical purposes such as incurring penalties. (See for example T. García Barberena et al, Comentarios al Código de Derecho Canónico, Vol. IV [Madrid: BAC, 1964], p. 214; S. Woywood, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law [New York: J. Wagner, 1952], p. 449.)

That is, a heresy isn't notorious until it is recognized as heretical by the bishops, so no one can conclude the Pope is in fact a notorious heretic until the bishops do so.

In 1978, one of Pope John Paul I's first decisions on his election was to dispense with the millennium-old papal coronation and the use of a papal tiara. Though perhaps understandable, given Pope Paul's gesture a decade earlier (Paul VI never wore a Triple Tiara again) it still caused some surprise. Instead the new pope was installed in a new low key 'inauguration' ceremony, so low key indeed that he had it moved to the morning so as not to disrupt Italian soccer coverage, which would normally be shown in the afternoon.

Fascinating. I knew that Paul VI had retired the Papal Tiara and sold it for charity, but I had not heard this about the coronation aspect before.

Here's EWTN's article on the topic, with a picture of Paul VI wearing one: http://www.ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/tiara.htm

This one is much more cone-shaped than that of his predecessors: http://www.piusxiipope.info/papacy.htm

There is also an amusing site an associate keeps sending me that promotes Vatican/Freemason conspiracy theories based on symbols and emblems. They see the papal tiara as mirroring the masonic "beehive" symbol: http://www.cephasministry.com/masonic_influence_on_the_vatican_1.html. Note that this link is for entertainment purposes only, please do not delude yourselves into taking this seriously.

Provided the bishops aren't heretics themselves. Then what happens?

It can't. The Church will persevere until the end of time and it will always be ruled by bishops:

OUR Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church ... (St. Cyprian, Epistle 26)

To: gbcdoj
Let me run this by you one more time...

The Church can never defect from the Faith.

Individuals can, however, defect from the Faith and hence are no longer any part of the Church.

In this case MANY did.

Also there have been too, too, many bogus quotes fabricated from thin air and disseminated in all areas by members of the apostate church - such as a recent citation made on FR from a work which turned out to have been condemned on the Index.

Those who cite bogus quotes corresponds with the same who witness every heresy in the book spewed forth from "JP2" and other apostate bishops and then go through gymnastic contortions to attempt to excuse away the heretical actions and heretical teaching.

You strain at a gant and yet allow a camel to pass.

Your quote from Sixtus does not apply for the reasons I cited above. I do NOT, however, in any way, accept it, or any other pedantic references from the spawn of satan, as genuine in the first place - and neither should any others.

If they presented truth, they would not strive so hard to flee from it, e.g. the photographs of JP2 engaging in one epsiode after another of "communicatio in sacris", worship with false religions. One only has to glance at one document, Mortalium Animos, - let alone any other citation from the TRUE CHURCH - to know that his actions constitute irredeemable apostasy.

Why bother explaining things in words to those who even have the temerity to ignore photographic evidence! You demonstrated to all, quite nicely I might add, the level of your veracity in attempting to explain the latest, as well as all the others, away.

A note to all, wise up, don't accept one item from them on face value, and do NOT let them continually evade confronting their mentors' and their own falsehood.

Do not concede them one inch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.