High Petrine view in the early Church

[Phillip_Rolfes]

You should perhaps have read the relatio before quoting it as support, especially as it flatly contradicts and condemns some of your points of view.

I have read, and am reading, the Relatio. Please do not call my integrity into question. I have also amended my statement that the Pope has to consult the bishops before defining a dogma. The Relatio obviously states otherwise. But it also states that the Pope does have a moral obligation to consult the Scriptures, Church Fathers, theologians, and anyone else he feels necessary for coming to a definitive conclusion on whatever matter has been presented to him. Such consultation is seen as the consent of the Church. The Relatio also states that infallible papal declarations can only be made in response to matters brought before him by his fellow bishops asking for his intervention. Such was the case with the two most recent dogmatic declarations in re the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The Pope did not decide in a vacuum that these things were suddenly dogma.

Thus far I have said nothing in regard to the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, and I will continue to say nothing about the matter. I would merely ask what exactly constitutes jurisdiction and what the “powers” are that can be wielded without impediment or hindrance.

My only concern, at the moment, is to determine when and in what manner a papal declaration is constituted infallible and dogmatic, and what is the process of arriving at an infallible dogma from the Pope. Gasser explains this and points to Pastor Aeternus. In fact, an amendment had been suggested that would insert an explicit statement of the process whereby the Pope arrives at an infallible dogma. This request was voted down because the process was already contained in the document: that is, the calling of Ecumenical Councils, local synods, discussion with bishops and theologians, consulting the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc. In such a case and with such a process the Pope is most certainly not acting alone or in a vacuum. Here I, and Gasser, are only referring to infallible Papal declarations. As far as the Pope acting alone in other matters that would fall under “universal jurisdiction” and not “infallible declarations,” Gasser is silent because his Relatio was not meant to address that. I also have said nothing and will say nothing on the matter.

 

[jmj1984]

I have read, and am reading, the Relatio. Please do not call my integrity into question. I have also amended my statement that the Pope has to consult the bishops before defining a dogma. The Relatio obviously states otherwise. But it also states that the Pope does have a moral obligation to consult the Scriptures, Church Fathers, theologians, and anyone else he feels necessary for coming to a definitive conclusion on whatever matter has been presented to him. Such consultation is seen as the consent of the Church. The Relatio also states that infallible papal declarations can only be made in response to matters brought before him by his fellow bishops asking for his intervention. Such was the case with the two most recent dogmatic declarations in re the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The Pope did not decide in a vacuum that these things were suddenly dogma.

Thus far I have said nothing in regard to the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, and I will continue to say nothing about the matter. I would merely ask what exactly constitutes jurisdiction and what the “powers” are that can be wielded without impediment or hindrance.

My only concern, at the moment, is to determine when and in what manner a papal declaration is constituted infallible and dogmatic, and what is the process of arriving at an infallible dogma from the Pope. Gasser explains this and points to Pastor Aeternus. In fact, an amendment had been suggested that would insert an explicit statement of the process whereby the Pope arrives at an infallible dogma. This request was voted down because the process was already contained in the document: that is, the calling of Ecumenical Councils, local synods, discussion with bishops and theologians, consulting the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc. In such a case and with such a process the Pope is most certainly not acting alone or in a vacuum. Here I, and Gasser, are only referring to infallible Papal declarations. As far as the Pope acting alone in other matters that would fall under “universal jurisdiction” and not “infallible declarations,” Gasser is silent because his Relatio was not meant to address that. I also have said nothing and will say nothing on the matter.

I am not actually speaking about you.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

possibly here?

**837 **“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

No, that’s not what I was looking for. I’ll have to look it up again tonight and then provide the paragraph numbers. Once I do, would you be so kind as to provide the quotes again.

And thank you for providing the other quotes from the CCC as well. I’m going to have to dig through my copy again tonight and read that full section on the Pope and bishops.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am not actually speaking about you.

I figured such might be the case. I simply wanted to clarify my own intentions and what I was trying to get to the core of.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am not actually speaking about you.

Oh! I see what you are saying now. You must have been referring to my first sentence. Sorry about the misunderstanding there. My fault entirely.

 

[jmj1984]

Oh! I see what you are saying now. You must have been referring to my first sentence. Sorry about the misunderstanding there. My fault entirely.

No problem, I should have made myself clearer

 

[louis91766]

It is questionable whether the rules have actually changed or whether people have merely misrepresented the rules.

Well then, could it be alleged that it is questionable as to whether jmj1984 might have misrepresented something?

 

[jmj1984]

Well then, could it be alleged that it is questionable as to whether jmj1984 might have misrepresented something?

Then go and look up the sources

 

[louis91766]

Then go and look up the sources

I don’t doubt the sources, but I am not so sure about the interpretation.
For example, if we consult the source of the Council of Florence, we see that Jews and schismatics will go to hell, unless they convert at the moment of death. However, I don’t see this as the present teaching of the RCC, since Eastern Orthodox schismatics who do not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope are allowed (from the RC point of view) to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. They don’t have to convert. And even Cardinal Kasper has said that the Old Law is salvific for a Jew today.
Here is a talk by Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware on Orthodox & Catholic Union. Obviously, he has a different view of what is meant by Primacy of the Roman Pope.
Part I: youtube.com/watch?v=c_6utrkUjMc
Part II:
youtube.com/watch?v=tAQ_v-0iP70&feature=related

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t doubt the sources, but I am not so sure about the interpretation.
For example, if we consult the source of the Council of Florence, we see that Jews and schismatics will go to hell, unless they convert at the moment of death. However, I don’t see this as the present teaching of the RCC, since Eastern Orthodox schismatics who do not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope are allowed (from the RC point of view) to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. They don’t have to convert. And even Cardinal Kasper has said that the Old Law is salvific for a Jew today.
Here is a talk by Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware on Orthodox & Catholic Union. Obviously, he has a different view of what is meant by Primacy of the Roman Pope.
Part I: youtube.com/watch?v=c_6utrkUjMc
Part II:
youtube.com/watch?v=tAQ_v-0iP70&feature=related

With all due respect to his eminence, he is not exactly know for being a good theologian, rather he is well known for his controversial statements that often contradict the traditional catholic view. His opinion is all well and good but the idea that the Old Law is salvific for a jew today has been condemned in scripture, by the church fathers, ecumenical councils and popes.

The council of florence is a difficult issue and I suggest you read the encyclicals from the 19th and 20th centuries that deal with the issue of ‘Invincible ignorance’. I have read that the statement from the council of florence presumes the jews and so on have been properly taught and explained the faith as well as shown it through charitable actions and so on and thus could not claim invincible ignorance. It is in that context that that statement must be read.

 

[louis91766]

With all due respect to his eminence, he is not exactly know for being a good theologian, rather he is well known for his controversial statements that often contradict the traditional catholic view. His opinion is all well and good but the idea that the Old Law is salvific for a jew today has been condemned in scripture, by the church fathers, ecumenical councils and popes.

The council of florence is a difficult issue and I suggest you read the encyclicals from the 19th and 20th centuries that deal with the issue of ‘Invincible ignorance’. I have read that the statement from the council of florence presumes the jews and so on have been properly taught and explained the faith as well as shown it through charitable actions and so on and thus could not claim invincible ignorance. It is in that context that that statement must be read.

But has any Pope ever said that Cardinal Kasper was wrong? And he remains in his rather high position in the Vatican? I don’t doubt your sources or what was said then. But my impression is that people in the Vatican today are giving these things a different interpretation. Consider this: would Assisi have been possible before Vatican II?

 

[jmj1984]

But has any Pope ever said that Cardinal Kasper was wrong? And he remains in his rather high position in the Vatican? I don’t doubt your sources or what was said then. But my impression is that people in the Vatican today are giving these things a different interpretation. Consider this: would Assisi have been possible before Vatican II?

I fail to see the point of this post? Are saying something is right just because the Pope hasn’t explicitly condemned it? And because of Vatican II all of these things are perfectly acceptable? These aren’t sources or authority these are assumptions and opinion.

 

[louis91766]

1.   Therefore whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them.  But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility.  It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops.  Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient?  Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others?  '

I don’t think that this part is true, at least according to what I have read elsewhere. I thought that the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra”
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4).
   So according to 5, this has to be held by the whole Church and it is a required condition.

 

[twf]

In a previous post on another thread some months ago, I suggested that Blessed John Paul II made it quite clear that he held to the position presented by brother Marduk…

Here is the text of an interesting general audience given by the late Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II, on Feb. 24, 1993:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

I’ve included a few highlights below which I believe support Marduk’s position (which I as a Latin share - long before getting involved in any of these CAF discussions, I was always struck by the fact that the CCC carefully emphasizes that all the bishops are true vicars of Christ and not mere deputies of the Pope of Rome):

*The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church (cf. LG 22). This power, as well as that of all bishops, has a ministerial character (ministerium means service), as the Fathers of the Church had already observed.

It is a mission of service to the universal Church, which necessarily entails a corresponding authority precisely because of this service: the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs, according to the order of their dignity.

In this regard it would be well to clarify immediately that this “fullness” of power attributed to the Pope in no way detracts from the “fullness” also belonging to the body of bishops. On the contrary, one must assert that both the Pope and the episcopal body have “all the fullness” of power. The Pope possesses this fullness personally, while the body of bishops, united under the Pope’s authority, possesses it collegially. The Pope’s power does not result from simply adding numbers, but is the episcopal body’s principle of unity and wholeness.

Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches.*

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).

Because of this new clarification the erroneous interpretations often made of Vatican I’s definition are rejected and the full significance of the Petrine ministry is shown in its harmony with the doctrine of episcopal collegiality

He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims.

Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: “My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him”(emphasises added)

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think that this part is true, at least according to what I have read elsewhere. I thought that the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra”
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4).
   So according to 5, this has to be held by the whole Church and it is a required condition.

You certainly won’t catch me defending the document.

 

[jmj1984]

In a previous post on another thread some months ago, I suggested that Blessed John Paul II made it quite clear that he held to the position presented by brother Marduk…

And?

One needs to look at the entire tradition of the church, not the opinion of a single pope.

 

[steve_b]

In a previous post on another thread some months ago, I suggested that Blessed John Paul II made it quite clear that he held to the position presented by brother Marduk…

twf,

*All emphasis mine, comments in *blue] mine

Excerpt from the document you reference
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

"For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation*. Marduk says, only “with” the bishop’s permission or mediation never without their permission or mediation. Look at the post JMJ is responding to *forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8424159&postcount=161 ] Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. [Marduk imposes his norms that limit the exercise of papal primacy. Go back and look] The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061). * a bishop governs a diocese entrusted to him, the pope governs the world entrusted to him ] *Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” * and it goes without saying, the reverse is also true of the episcopate] The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115)." * addressed in # 895 in the CCC]

JPII’s thoughts were also addressed previously in quotes from the CCC which as you know, JPII approved.

Re: comparing authority of the Pontiff and individual bishops, in the Catechism

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

**883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

**886 “**The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches.” As such, they “exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,” assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches. The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing “to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches.” They extend it especially to the poor, to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

**895 **“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

**937 **The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, ***“supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (**CD *2).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jmj,

If you had no interest in the discussion you simply wouldn’t reply, seeing as you’r replying you clearly have an interest in this discussion.

My only reply has been to ask for the texts, which you have consistently failed to produce.

I have several times produced texts that state that the Pope can impede the authority of a bishop in his diocese.

You haven’t produced any. I notice you pretend you did below in this same post. It was already addressed, but you did not answer my response. I will respond again below.

Actually thats not what I meant if it was I would have stated that.

Your misinterpretations don’t match the text, however.

Except of course that you can’t provide an authority that states the Pope always acts together with his brother bishops, seeing as your position is new and not the understanding of people in the church pre v-2 you are under a burden to provide this evidence not me.

The witness of Sacred Tradition supports the High Petrine position. I notice you backtrack, stating that I can’t provide an authority, and then state “pre-V2.” That says it all. I suspect you are one of those who supports the SSPX, and don’t accept the authority of V2, except when it suits your own opinions.

Regardless several people have all shown texts and occassions where a Pope acts apart from his brother bishops. What there is to respond to, are the facts. Facts you clearly cannot refute so igore hoping perhaps that no one will notice that you are ignoring them.

No facts and texts have been given. Why should we believe that the standard of Sacred Tradition has been demolished? If you believe that, that is just another of your errors.

I’m afraid Marduk thats really not what it says, the word college isn’t in the text for one, so its clear you are reading your own interpretations into the text nor is the word ‘in union with him’ , universal in reference to the other bishops or even ‘the whole church’. Those are all words you are reading into the text in order to make it compatible with your view.

What the statement says without reading in the words ‘college’ ‘in union with’ or ‘the bishops in union with him can also exercise universal authority’ is quite simply that the Pope is supreme, he exercises authority above all the bishops and has the exact same authority as the bishops in their dioceses as well as this supreme and universal power. Simply put your attempt to say that the Pope cannot interfere in the affair of an Orthodox bishop in his diocese are flatly contradicted by this text which clearly states that the Pope possess the same authority as bishops over their subjects and possess supreme power over all the bishops both individually and collectively.

. Really, brother, you have got to take off those Absolutist Petrine glasses. The text you gave states quite clearly that it is UNLAWFUL FOR YOU to MISinterpret the prerogatives of the St. Peter in a DIFFERENT sense from what was given to the ENTIRE COLLEGE (the Apostles conjointly with St. Peter). Obviously, you missed the “Apostles conjointly with St. Peter” part. So the only thing the quote you gave is saying is that the power of the Pope is THE SAME as the power of the College (the Pope with his brother bishops). It does not say that the Pope’s power is ABOVE the College, but THE SAME. WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES THE QUOTE SAY THAT THE POPE IS ABOVE THE COLLEGE (THE BISHOPS IN UNION WITH THE POPE)? LIKE I SAID, ONCE YOU PRODUCE TEXTS THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT YOUR ERRORS, THEN I WILL ADDRESS THOSE TEXTS. All that’s been happening here is that I am responding to your erroneous MISinterpretations.

Game. Set. Match.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Actually the word impede is non-existent in the texts of the first Vatican council, it is yet another word you’ve read into a source in order to make it compatible with your erroneous view. The Council states ‘**This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51] **’ So no it doesn’t detract from the power of a bishop over his diocese, that would prevent him from doing his job but it in nowise states that the Pope cannot interfere in the affairs of an orthodox bishop in his diocese, this is just something you have read into the text.

I see. Have you looked up the word “detract” in the dictionary lately? It means to take away or divert from. So the Pope’s authority “BY NO MEANS detracts from the authority of the local bishop.” I think a level-headed person would take this to mean that the Pope’s authority cannot be used in such a way that would take away the authority of the bishop in his local diocese. But, your claim is that the Pope can act in such a way that can IMPEDE, or stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local diocese. RIIIIIIIIGHT! That makes perfect sense. NOT!!! Once you think about it, you’ll see that your denial of my statement is nonsense. You are just playing at empty sophism now.

And yet Pope Leo XIII makes it quite clear that the pope has the exact same powers a bishop has in his diocese over each and every member of the faithful and the clergy as well his unique power as successor of St Peter. So your argument flatly contradicts Pope Leo XIII

You only claim this because you are ignorant of, and choose to remain ignorant of, the canonical distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction — in other words, the canonical distinction between HAVING the power and EXERCISING the power.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I notice you are very selective about which portions of my answers you respond to. In the beginning, you responded to every statement with a comment. You are progressively only able to respond to fewer and fewer portions of the contents of my posts. But that’s OK.

 

[mardukm]

Oh!! I forgot to respond to this fascinating bit of rhetoric.

Let us look at how you have dealt with Pope Pius IX… you haven’t dealt with it, you’ve misread it and as a result completely failed to address the issue at hand.

‘34 - The doctrine of those who compared the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages and 38- The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the church into East and West’

Pope Pius IX is NOT condemning the idea that 'The Roman Pontiff is a free prince within the universal church’

YES, he is. What you have done is cut and pasted TWO SEPARATE condemnations (#34 and #38), and magically created a completely different Canon out of it. I’ve noticed that this is quite typical for you Absolutist Petrine advocates (evident in your fantastically imaginative misinterpretations of the current Catholic Canons).

The Pope condemned the idea that the Roman Pontiff is a free prince (#34), that the Pope can act or does act on just his say-so without any regard for the laws of the Church. The term “free prince,” during the Middle Ages, was the standard proposed by Machiavelli, who envisioned a supreme monarch who was not bound by any laws aside from his own personal say-so.

THEN, there is a SEPARATE condemnation (#38) of the idea that the Pope’s actions in the Middle Ages contributed too much to the division of the Church. This idea is condemned on the premise that the Pope has always acted (or at least tried to act) for the good of the Church and her unity.

Nice try, but no cigar.

he is condemning the idea that this is an idea which was made up in the middle ages and thus false or old fashioned and not relevant today.

Nope. You just cut and pasted myopic little snippets (typical), creating a whole new Canon that pretends to support your errors.

If #34 was truly trying to condemn the idea that the notion of “free prince” was RESTRICTED to the Middle Ages, then it would have said so. Your mind is the only place where your misintpretation exists. It is NOT contained in the texts you have cited.

He cannot be saying that this idea did not exist or was not the common view in the middle ages because its a historical fact that it was and he cannot be condemning the idea itself both because the way he is doing it would be completely illogical and long winded but also because then he would write ‘The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince in the universal church’ and not the rest of the sentence. In condemning the idea that this statement is out of date or made up Pope Pius IX declares his support for it

Brother, you are confusing the misinterpretation you imposed on it with the actual text. WHERE DOES THE TEXT SAY THAT IT IS CONDEMNING “THE IDEA THAT IT IS OUT OF DATE”?

The next point follows because…This is unavoidable from your line of reasoning.

Whatever you say.

Pope Pius VI in auctorem fidei condemns the following assertions 'Likewise in that it says it is convinced that ‘the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the church cannot be altered nor hindered, and when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of the church demands it’ in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church…

Again, please take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses. This only condemns the idea that there is no higher authority that can judge a local bishop. The High Petrine view accepts this with the understanding that in EXTRAordinary circumstances, a local bishop can be judged by his head bishop in Synod (or at least in a collegial context). This is the standard of the early Fathers, enshrined in the Canons of Sardica. What this statement from Pope Pius VI does NOT support is your Absolutist Petrine error that the Pope can REGULARLY interfere in the affairs of a local Church.

Anything else? Feel free to give more quotes. We can’t leave any stone unturned, any of your erroneous MISInterpretations refuted. In CAF, we aim to inform and to learn about the TRUTH, not let errors such as yours run rampant.

Blessings