Very true:
Though I may be tiptoeing, I assure you my feet are still touching the ground.Let go of that bell… your feet are off the ground.
Are we talking about two different oaths? I am not aware that the Oath of Supremacy was abolished in England proper until the Emancipation Act. Though it was abolished in the late 1700’s in Ireland (IIRC), there were still many laws incapacitating Catholic clergy in effect in 1825. So it is highly probable that bishops would take oaths contrary to Catholic faith to mollify the fears of the British governments in order to advance the cause of Emancipation. I am sure you are aware that Emancipation was expected by Catholics at the union of 1800, but was delayed until 1829. It is certainly conceivable that any (false) oaths taken by Catholic Bishops helped expedite the realization of Emancipation for Catholics - among other actions by Catholics.
Can you post a link to this catechism. I think you did it before, but I can’t find it.
The Test Act: that’s the reason O’Connell couldn’t sit in parliament. It’s hardly a major imposition. His election and his inability to sit in parliament caused a stir and Catholics were emancipated.
I deny that it was the official teaching of the Popes. I admit that it was the practice of several Popes. Officially speaking, the best reference I can think of is Unam Sanctam, but it does not make any claim about the deposing power. It does state that the religious power has the right to establish the secular power, but this was nothing more than what any secular power was willing to admit at the time. Certainly, no one claims that THAT portion of the Bull was invested with infallibility - only the actual definition contained at the very end of the Bull - so it was a circumstantial understanding of the papal prerogatives, which would naturally change according to the political circumstances of the age…
The Inquisition was actually a tool of the State, I’m surprised you did not know. Naturally, those countries that did not want it would not have it - it was not a matter of defying the Pope. For political expedience (since religion was so closely tied to the peace of the countries), States would set up their own institutions and request approval from the papacy. The only Inquisition that was personally begun by the Pope was the Albigensian Inquisition, and local inquisitions in Italy (perhaps southern France also). All other inquisitions were State-initiated.
I can tell you that no Pope has ever denied the de fide teaching that the spiritual power is above the secular power. HOW this has been realized down through the centuries has changed depending on the political circumstances of the times. In truth, how much power the Pope exercised in the secular sphere has always been a function of how much power the Secular power allowed the Pope to have.
I think that is a misunderstanding of the teaching. I believe what was taught was that the State was expected to support the true faith/Church. What derived from this was the idea that the Catholic faith would be FAVORED by the State, not that other faiths would be curtailed or abolished by the State. The “curtailment” of other faiths would be under the sole purview of the Church by virtue of evangelization, not by virtue of force. Perhaps you are confusing the process with what the Russian Orthodox Church has been accustomed to experiencing.and requesting from the State. But that is not the way of it with the Catholic Church.
My objection to infallibility, we have to sift through in the actual proclomation to see which clause is and which clause isn’t, while the whole thing basks in the aura.
Ask the Indian Orthodox (of whatever stripe) how much differnce that made. The Protestants also can tell you a thing or two.
Or how many armies he could raise, which is ironic, as the Vatican’s greatest victory was fought without an army, ie. communism. Comrade Stalin, the pope didn’t need divisions.
As much as I admire JP II, I have to point out the inconsistency of his statements on proselitizing and religious freedom in Eastern Europe and those in Latin America.
I find this quote of particular interest too.
How should I know what happened to them? As I said before,I doubt that the transcripts of the government inquiry were sent to Rome. Catholic Ireland was not a papal state in 1825,it was under the authority of the Protestant government of England. And those Irish clergy would not have wanted what they said to be made known to the pope anyway. They were denying that the pope had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them,as if they had a right to choose for themselves what doctrines they accepted from Rome.
Why not? They are important to Rome for showing that either
Why not?
So they willingly taught heresy!
That’s false. The Pope can interfere in any bishopric.
What about his Jesuit spies?
I believe brother Anthony already answered you. The document was a government document. It was not up to the clergy to send it to Rome.
The point is moot. The document was not theirs to send. To be sure, there were many Apostolic Vicars around in Britain. If those Vicars actually believed that those statements were true (and not made under duress), they would have made a fuss. I guess we should find out what the Apostolic Vicars did.
If they did, it was very ambiguous. Were they denying the misconception of infallibility that was rampant in those days, or were they actually denying the true infallibility as understood and dogmatized by the Vatican Council? In any case, the issue of duress would still be relevant, which would not make them culpable in that case.
None of the things you enumerated supports your assertion.
Can you be more specific?I believe the Jesuits were forbidden by the Protestant government in England. So I don’t know what they would have to do with it.What about his Jesuit spies?
That is an attempt to miss the mark. It was a government document that involved matters of concern to the Papacy. It was a public document and bishops were setting out on public record what they thought of the limits of Papal power.
The document was not sealed and sent to some achival dungeon but was part of an ongoing (fledling) democratic process to assess the treatment of Catholics
They denied Papal infalibility
It does. A pope argued that he could interfere in any part of the Catholic church.None of the things you enumerated supports your assertion.
That’s why I said “spies”. However that was more of a joke. There was no need for spies because the parliament did not conduct its business in secret.
Why not? They are important to Rome for showing that either
a) the church in Ireland were unified in their heresy
or
b) their willingness to purjure - rather than face persecution.
They either perjured themselves for the sake of placating the British government and getting the legislation passed,or they just had an irresponsible and stupid attitude toward the head of their church,like some modern-day clergymen do.
Why not?
Because it was a government inquiry of a civil matter in which the opinion and involvement of Rome was not sought after and not welcome. The British government did not want involvement from Rome in Irish domestic affairs to begin with. It was not for Rome to decide that the British government should give the Irish Catholics their civil rights.
And those Irish clergymen would not have been willing to send the transcripts even if they had them,because what they said was an insult to the ecclesiastical authority of the pope.
So they willingly taught heresy!
I don’t know if they taught heresy,but they had an attitude which could be potentially heretical.
That’s false. The Pope can interfere in any bishopric.
St. Gregory asserted this
viz
That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
Dictatus Papae
fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html
When I said that the pope doesn’t have immediate jurisdiction,
I meant just that – immediate jurisdiction. The bishops have immediate jurisdiction over their diocese,and priests have immediate jurisdiction over the local churches.
But the pope has universal jurisdiction over the whole church,so that the bishops and priests must ultimately remain in communion with the pope by adhering to the doctrinal teachings of the See of Peter. To reject the doctrines of the head of the church is to be spiritually out of communion with the church.
What about his Jesuit spies?
The power and influence of the Jesuits had been greatly mitigated during the 18th century.
I’m fashionably late in this thread, but I am curious enough to ask someone to please explain what all these ordinaries and extraordinaries mean. I followed along until the last section with ordinary jurisdiction being exercised extraordinarily. Would someone please break it down for me?
In the Nature of Authority:
It’s difficult to understand the Catholic position; they pretend that the Pope is like all other bishops - a ‘first amongst equals’ however this is not the case. Although he also holds the position of Bishop (of Rome) his powers are quite extraordinary - able to interfere in any part of the church he chooses. The only thing is he doesn’t always do this - preferring - somewhat like Augustus - to hold power through working through delegates.Thanks!
How can he have a right which is “to be expected; common, frequent, or by right; routine.” but when he uses it, it is “not to be expected; not common or not by right.”? That doesn’t make any sense.
I probably should read through the last three pages to see how many people debated that.
You can’t. But you can have a right that is seldom used.Thanks!
How can he have a right which is “to be expected; common, frequent, or by right; routine.” but when he uses it, it is “not to be expected; not common or not by right.”? That doesn’t make any sense.
I probably should read through the last three pages to see how many people debated that.
If EMHCs have an extraordinary right to dispense communion that has now become ordinary to see through exercise of the extraordinary right, what would stop the pope from using his extraordinary rights ordinarily?