I assume you're discussing FX Kraus.
Do you ever go to the primary sources? Do you even know when the Holy See first identified, defined and condemned Ultramontanism?
That is they aren't tainted with heresy.
FX Kraus made a mistatement of fact. It isn't necessarily heretical to tell a lie.
Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Insofar as he derives his authority from the Holy See, yes.
there are many bishops who are not vicars of Christ in any way. Like "Bishop" Williamson of the SSPX, for example.
The pope has a primacy of jurisdiction "without prejudice to the rights privileges and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs." to quote the Melkite reservation to Vatican I.
The Melkite clergy do not get to make doctrinal decisions for the Universal Church. Their opinion is just that - their opinion.
Actually, Pope Benedict has used similar language to expound a horizontal exercise of the papacy.
Pope Benedict XVI takes a very high view of collegiality and mutual respect among brother bishops, as he should. He has not renounced his inherent primacy of jurisdiction, of course.
B.S., Patriarch Maximos IV made reference to him at Vatican II. There is no mythology here.
Maximos IV told the same fictionalized account of Gregory II that is popular in certain circles. Just because Maximos IV repeated the same stories about Pius IX that Gregory II told doesn't make them any more true.
Detraction is no sin if the accusations of scandal have basis in fact.
Incorrect.
Slander only occurs if there is no basis in fact.
We're talking about detraction, not slander.
Besides, who are you to judge me?
I'm not - there may be a perfectly good reason why you are detracting certain Popes. You may not be capable of telling the difference between right and wrong, you may have an impaired conscience, etc. I won't assume that you are automatically culpable.
You do. Your words prove it.
And now you are telling a deliberate falsehood about me. Charming.
No I'm not
Do you ever go to the primary sources? Do you even know when the Holy See first identified, defined and condemned Ultramontanism?
I don't believe the Holy See defined Ultramontanism per se, but Ratzinger placed it in the same breath with conciliarism and Febronianism as distortions of Catholic truth. Roughly the mid-1990s.
That is they aren't tainted with heresy.
FX Kraus made a mistatement of fact. It isn't necessarily heretical to tell a lie.
Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Insofar as he derives his authority from the Holy See, yes.
>>Nope, inasfar as they derive their authority from Christ. Such is an innovation that was unknown in the early centuries.
The bishops are NOT vicars of the Roman Pontiff. This is precisely what St. Gregory the Great condemned during the ecumenical patriarch controversy.
there are many bishops who are not vicars of Christ in any way. Like "Bishop" Williamson of the SSPX, for example.
Every bishop is a vicar of Christ by virtue of his consecration. The Vatican seems to regard the Orthodox bishops as valid successors of the apostles. Bishop Williamson is valid, but illicit.
The pope is not the sum of the Church my friend.
The pope has a primacy of jurisdiction "without prejudice to the rights privileges and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs." to quote the Melkite reservation to Vatican I.
The Melkite clergy do not get to make doctrinal decisions for the Universal Church. Their opinion is just that - their opinion.
The patriarchs have their authority by divine right too. No council can be ecumenical without their assent, not just the pope of Rome's. As far as the Melkite Church is concerned, the reservation to Vatican I stands.
Actually, Pope Benedict has used similar language to expound a horizontal exercise of the papacy.
Pope Benedict XVI takes a very high view of collegiality and mutual respect among brother bishops, as he should. He has not renounced his inherent primacy of jurisdiction, of course.
Here, you are establishing a strawman. I believe the pope has jurisdiction, but I don't believe it is or should be as exalted as you might think. With regards to the Eastern Churches, let the pope mind his own business unless we happen to screw things up so badly we can't put things back together without him.
The pyramidal Medieval structure of the papacy is an innovation that had no place during the 1st millenium, and it should have no place now.
B.S., Patriarch Maximos IV made reference to him at Vatican II. There is no mythology here.
Maximos IV told the same fictionalized account of Gregory II that is popular in certain circles. Just because Maximos IV repeated the same stories about Pius IX that Gregory II told doesn't make them any more true.
How can you prove that this is mythical? What source do you have except an almost worshipful exaltation of the papacy?
Detraction is no sin if the accusations of scandal have basis in fact.
Incorrect.
Says who, you?
Slander only occurs if there is no basis in fact.
We're talking about detraction, not slander.
Besides, who are you to judge me?
I'm not - there may be a perfectly good reason why you are detracting certain Popes. You may not be capable of telling the difference between right and wrong, you may have an impaired conscience, etc. I won't assume that you are automatically culpable.
Sounds a bit like you in this case. There is a perfectly good reason why rebuking Paul VI and John Paul II is necessary, they have been destroying the Catholic Church for 40 years between the two of them.
Perhaps you had a course or two in scholasticism, but it doesn't make your judgment infallible or even right. Scholasticism should be relegated to the junkyard of Catholic history.
Byzantine Catholics are not Scholastics. Latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous.
You do. Your words prove it.
And now you are telling a deliberate falsehood about me. Charming.
You are blind.