From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. (First Vatican, Pastor Aeternus)
The Council gives the reason for the primacy: guarding the unity of faith and the unity of communion. So much for the Pope not being a servant of unity. Moreover,
But the blessed Cyprian . . . among other things, says the following: "The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one." (Pope Pelagius II, Letter to the Schismatic Bishops of Istria, 585 AD)
It falls right into the double part of Catholic and Rationalist that St. Pius X condemned.
I suppose you are citing the part of Pascendi (§18) where he condemns how the Modernists would say one thing in their homilies, and another in their 'scientific' writing? But this is not applicable, since UUS is a single document.
It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
Exactly. That is a far cry from some vague, borderless mission of unity for heretics, infidels and schismatics. The office of St. Peter isn't open to some "new situation" that the non-Catholics will accept. Sorry, you don't make any point but mine.
The Council gives the reason for the primacy: guarding the unity of faith and the unity of communion. So much for the Pope not being a servant of unity
You're just imbibing in JPII's bafflegab. Being a guardian of doctrine is not being a servant of unity if that means finding some lowest common denominator to appeal to. The false eirenism that Pius XII condemned.
But the blessed Cyprian . . . among other things, says the following: "The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one." (Pope Pelagius II, Letter to the Schismatic Bishops of Istria, 585 AD)
Yes. And nowhere is the "mission of unity" (ie. the acting person phenomenological junk) considered. Unity is already acheived in the Church under Peter. It's not some "desire" of Christ's that is the mission of the Pontiff to fulfill by changing what Christ instituted.
I suppose you are citing the part of Pascendi (§18) where he condemns how the Modernists would say one thing in their homilies, and another in their 'scientific' writing? But this is not applicable, since UUS is a single document.
Nice try but you're grasping. Pius X wasn't being exhuastive in Pascendi. He stated the modernists use "a thousand noxious devices"
Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.