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.

You may be a nice person but so far you seem obsessed with trads. We have enough of those around and your posts have not been limited to sedevacantists.

Well, I'm not 'obsessed with trads' - see here for example, where I was discussing the filioque and schism with an Eastern Orthodox poster. Most of my "anti-traditional" posts were in response to stuff like this: "It is, in fact, the Lutheran worship service adapted for Catholics by a committee of humanists. Its theology is Protestant, not Catholic, and it violates strictures established by the Council of Trent. It is therefore an abomination and a danger to the faith." and "The current crop of blighters were all formal heretics before being putatively elected and hence never did, or could ever, occupy the papal throne or possess the Keys of Peter."

It's like a syndrome. For some reason there are people who feel the need to judge, attack, correct, hound and badger traditionalist Catholics of all stripes. It doesn't come across as heartfelt concern for a brother's soul either, it comes across as neurotic and mean spirited at times.

On the subject of "mean spirited", my current discussion with Viva Christo Rey started out with this post of his:

The author, who decries the well-meaning laity obsessing over triviliaties while the Church burns, is guilty of the same, because it is not the Roman Catholic Church, but a false edifice, constructed of tarpaper, by apostates who have usurped titles alone, and have thus led the untutored faithful from the true Body of Christ under the whip of "obedience", obedience to error, lies, untruth, scheming, heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy.
The only real solution is to call error, error, lies, lies, apostasy, apostasy, and that which stinks of satan, is of satan and inseparable from it.
And then to return to what the Church has taught, always, in all places and by all, in other words the normal state of affairs before hell opened and spewed forth "Vatican 2", remain in communion with those who hold the true Faith, and separate oneself and flee from those spewing forth heresy, especially from those heretics who purport to possess authority

assaulting what even the Society recognizes as the One Church of Christ as a "false edifice". St. Pius V would have had a man burned at the stake for what is written above. This fulfills everything laid down by St. Thomas in the Summa for "schismatics properly so called" (ST II-II q. 39 a. 1).

It's clear Viva Christo Rey simply doesn't understand Catholic theology well enough. For instance, he asserted on the other thread that religious liberty is a heresy - except it isn't. Even the most authoritative condemnation of religious liberty, by Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura, was only infallible but not dogmatic. He, after repeated requests, still hasn't produced a pertinacious heresy of Bl. John XXIII or Paul VI, even after slandering them as "formal heretics". Not to mention the fact "no one who is not a Catholic bishop may conclude definitively that a Pope is a notorious heretic" (Fr. Harrison O.S., cf. Wernz-Vidal 1942, vol. II, p. 518)

gbcdoj is one of the n00bs that enjoys coming in here as of late to constantly stir the pot, bait and harass traditional Catholics and those who worship in Society chapels.

I have not gotten that impression. I am impressed with the quality of the material that gbcdoj is posting. While I don't agree with him, it would be unfair to mis-characterize his participation. In contrast, the other person you mention has done little except throw around gratuitous insults. But while gbcdoj's position may be similar to that other person, his style is night and day. And "style" consists of things like courtesy and charity and knowledgeableness, which it makes it an important consideration.

Me hat's off you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?

I, on the other hand, agree with Pope Pius IX:

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."
But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

Quanta Cura "Condemning Certain Errors" 1864

In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone

Leading off with "however" is a dead giveaway that Leo XII was not coming out in favor of free speech as your little snippet implied. Here is the rest of the paragraph:

23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which -- as We have before said and must again and again repeat -- it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.
The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint.

Clearly Pope Leo XIII was not quite ready to join the ACLU.

Cause? No cause to advance here, we fear (there's really lots of us who are with McClave here you know). The only cause that hitherto succeeds here is anti-Catholicism, anti-"free"speech. Private interpretation----of what Catholicism is.

We'll watch gbcdoj convert Max and AAA to Vatican II as interprted by John Paul II and the magisterium.

You see, these good clowns talk about humor, but reject it at every turn. The rather employ mockery against the Pope and, of course, against those who defend him.

Really, outside this little forum this place is known as a nuthouse. We try to persuade people to give these time, and allow the process...

That is charity because it Hopes against seeming futility. When one prefers private interpretation to the magisterium one is a essentially Protestant, and Protestants always think they are the true faith.

So we keep on in Hope and humor. Ian and your friends

FR is a private forum, and hence there is no "free speech" here.

A very frightened forum. But, as you say it is private with no free speech here, you are (in calling this "Free" Republic) anti-constitutional (incapable of employing its principles even in this nutty tiny micro-forum) -----and thus hypocrisy itself.

Came in the wrong door, we, I guess. Thought free speech was allowed within catholic dogmatic parameters in a place called "Free" Republic. Thatnks for the correction. Everything makes sense now. You not only are Luther, but Pol Pott if you had power.

Bye.

Since you quoted Harrison alledgedly quoting Wernz-Vidal, try this on for size:

Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII

De Summo Pontifice
translated by J.S. Daly

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.

A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.

Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

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.