Patriarch Gregory VI's Response to Pius IX

In 1868, Pope Pius IX invited Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI to attend the upcoming Vatican Council, where papal infallibility was declared a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Gregory declined with these words: pic.twitter.com/G4SxuJfnCy

— Orthodox History (@OrthodoxHistory) August 6, 2021

Limits According to... Latin Traditionalists?

I just finished reading this book; it's an interesting study on the limits of the papacy. Well worth a read. pic.twitter.com/OHCgoWHIyF

— Hold to Tradition (@TraditionTo) May 11, 2021

The Papal Magisterium

Where in Vatican I does it say that it (along with infallibility) is limited to certain document types written by the bishop of Rome, or that certain formulae must be used to signal that it is ex cathedra?

Let's not forget that Francis believes even the things he says to the media are part of his magisterium: https://t.co/pw5uOm0v2n @CMReport

— Steve Skojec (@SteveSkojec) October 21, 2020

Russell Hittinger

Russ Hittinger on John O'Malley on conciliar reform in @americamag.

It doesn't get any better than that. https://t.co/nyRmSJz654

— Bill McCormick, SJ (@BMcCSJ) October 16, 2020

America Magazine

An abridged version of this paper:


See also:

Universal Teacher

Thomas Mirus observes the proliferation of documents from Rome, addressed not to the Church Universal but to the world.

Latin theologoumena regarding papal primacy in the second millenium has had some version of Latin integralism tied to it. So it's not surprising that the bishop of Rome should not only presume to exercise a spiritual authority over the Church Universal, but the world as well.

Peter Beaulieu on Vatican I

CWR: The 150th anniversary of Vatican I and the Church today by Peter D. Beaulieu
Has any and all harmony between Vatican I and the central thrust of the reconvened Second Vatican Council now been extravagantly jettisoned?

Back in 1870, Vatican I self-immunized against rapidly pandemic ideologies by affirming, clarifying, and circumscribing—neither modernist nor ultramontane—the dogma and reality of “papal infallibility,” as part of the living Tradition dating forward from St. Peter under the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (Mt 16:17) and Pentecost (Acts 2:1-31).

If what was written by Vatican I wasn't ultramontane (enough), what more would the ultramontanists have wanted? (For the pope to have the right to exercise political authority over the whole world and not just a "spiritual" authority?) What was actually written by Vatican I (and Vatican II) is already too ultramontane for the rest of the Church Universal. I'll have to dig out my copy of The Gift of Infallibility.

Related:
CLJ: The Twists and Turns That Led to the First Vatican Council by Shaun Blanchard

The Roman Position

The liberal left and right find it difficult to submit to the social teaching of the Church

The former refuses to obey Her teaching in matters of sexuality and the right to life.

The latter refuses to obey in matters of economic policy.

Nevertheless, she is Mother and Teacher. pic.twitter.com/fT291akkZS

— Leonine Institute (@leoinstituteCST) September 17, 2020

Rome's Claim Put Into Canon Law

1983 Code of Canon Law

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

(cf Canon 218 in the 1917 Code.)

Shaun Blanchard on the History Behind Vatican I

CLJ

The Twists and Turns That Led to the First Vatican Council https://t.co/yQQI6ntZ4K #wednesdaymorning #CatholicTwitter #WednesdayWisdom #Catholic #religion #theology

— Church Life Journal (@ChurchLifeND) July 1, 2020

Shaun Blanchard is one of the most interesting young Catholic theologians in North America. I am proud to call him my student. Here a new piece of his: #Catholic #CatholicTwitter https://t.co/TEDnApD3cw

— Ulrich L. Lehner (@ulrichlehner) July 1, 2020

This is more a history essay than a theological one; I presume the author is a Latin and so is unable to critically evaluate Rome's claims regarding the authority of the pope. Certainly the claims of hours
Isdiction have been recognized as being serious by the Eastern Orthodox for quite some time, and rejected as not being of Apostolic Tradition.

The Open Question of Church Polity and Governance: Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II

Not Getting It

Latin traditionalists still failing to grasp that the problem is not Vatican I or Vatican II or even the Council of Florence; it is Latin ecclesiology concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome, as Latin pretensions concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome arguably go back to the first millenium. Did any other Apostolic Church accept them? Would it have even made sense for them to, in an age of limited communication and an already multiethnic and multicultural Church? Perhaps the claim could have been sustained when the whole Church still understood and spoke Greek, including the bishop of Rome, but once that linguistic unity passed? How could the bishop of Rome possibly be competent to teach Christianity in any other language except his own? No man can be fluent in every single human language, and there is no special divine gift or charism that makes the bishop of Rome such a panglot.

What sort of rationalist apologetics for such an exaggerated notion of primacy can Latins pull out of their hats now?

1P5: The Second Vatican Council Is Now Far Spent by Peter Kwasniewski

October 11

Rorate Caeli: Feast of the Divine Maternity — or of Papa Roncalli? by Peter Kwasniewski

More on Newman

Some Reading on Newman

Latin Damage Control

Full episode.

Related:
Bishop Schneider discusses how the Church should handle a heretical pope
The limits of papal authority and the fate of a heretical pope: an exclusive interview with Bishop Schneider
Professor De Mattei Comments on Bishop Schneider's "Heretical Pope" Text

John Rao on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

Remnant: The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium by Robert J. Siscoe

John Lamont on Infallibility, Again

the original article, linked at this blog here

Rorate Caeli: Follow-up Article - Paul VI: The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful

The question of what role in which the bishop of Rome acts when he solemnly canonizes someone is not addressed. I don't think it was addressed in the previous installment either. He rather presumes the "traditional" Latin opinion in his article, when he speaks of the Church Universal (in relation to the bishop of Rome), rather than the patriarchate of Rome.

Canonisation, as they addressed it, took two forms; equipollent canonisation, and formal canonisation. Equipollent canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person to whom devotion has existed since time immemorial, and whose holiness and miracles are recorded by historians who are worthy of belief. Formal canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person whose heroic virtue and miracles have been established by a juridical process undertaken by the Holy See.

And so does he presume a Vatican I definition of papal infallibility? It would seem so:

This argument fails to grasp the nature of an infallible definition. In order for a papal teaching to be infallible, it is not enough for it to say that it is infallible; it has to actually satisfy the conditions for an infallible statement. Such statements must be exercises of the teaching authority of the Apostolic See, and they must definitively and finally bind all the faithful to assent to the assertions that they are making. In the case of an infallible truth that is divinely revealed, the faithful are required to believe (credere) the truth that is being taught. In the case of an infallible truth that belongs to the secondary object of the infallible magisterium, the faithful are required to hold (tenere) the truth that is being taught. The term ‘belief’ is used for divinely revealed truths, not because truths belonging to the secondary object of the magisterium do not also need to be believed to be true, but to underline that divinely revealed truths must be believed with an act of the theological virtue of faith.

What Would He Say About the Modern Roman Canonization Process?

John Henry Newman, conversion, and the papacy by Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille

Vatican I: Loss and Gain with Papal Governance of the Catholic Church

A panel discussion featuring John W. O'Malley, SJ (Georgetown University), Russell Hittinger (University of Tulsa), and Joseph Mueller, SJ (Marquette University), held on October 13, 2018 at the University of Chicago.