The Local Church of Rome

According to the divine constitution of Our Lord's kingdom on earth, membership in that kingdom, the universal Church militant, normally involves membership in some local or individual brotherhood within the universal Church. These individual brotherhoods within the Catholic Church are of two kinds. First there are the various local Churches, the associations of the faithful in the different individual regions of the earth. Then there are the religiones, assemblies of the faithful organized unice et ex integro for the attainment of perfection on the part of those who are admitted into them. According to the Apostolic Constitution Provida mater ecclesia, "the canonical discipline of the state of perfection as a public state was so wisely regulated by the Church that, in the case of clerical religious Institutes, in those matters in general which concern the clerical life of the religious, the Institutes took the place of dioceses, and membership in a religious society was equivalent to the incardination of a cleric in a diocese."[1]

Among these individual brotherhoods that live within the universal Church of God on earth, the local Church of Rome manifestly occupies a unique position. Theologians of an earlier day stressed these prerogatives of the Roman Church quite strongly. Unfortunately, however, in our own time the manuals of sacred theology, considered as a group, dwell almost exclusively upon the nature and the characteristics of the Church universal, without explaining the teaching about the local Church at any length. Consistently with this trend, they have chosen to teach about the Holy Father in relation to the Church throughout the entire world, and have given comparatively little attention to his function precisely as the head of the Christian Church in the Eternal City.

Thus we and the people whom God has commissioned us to instruct may be prone to forget that it is precisely by reason of the fact that he presides over this individual local congregation that the Holy Father is the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the entire Church militant. The Christian community of Rome was and remains Peter's Church. The man who governs that community with apostolic power in the name of Christ is Peter's successor, and is thus Our Lord's vicar in the rule of the Church universal.

It is definitely the more common teaching among the scholastic theologians that the office of the visible head of the entire Church militant is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of Rome, and that this absolutely permanent attachment exists by reason of the divine constitution of the Church itself. In other words, an imposing majority of Catholic theologians who have written on this particular subject have manifested the belief that no human agency, not even the Holy Father himself, could render the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church universal the prerogative of some episcopal see other than that of Rome or otherwise separate that primacy from the office and the essential prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. According to this widely accepted teaching, the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides over the local Christian community of the Eternal City.

During even its earliest stage of development, scholastic ecclesiology taught expressly that when St. Peter established himself as the head of the local Christian community in Rome, he was acting in accordance with God's own direction. Thus Alvaro Pelayo teaches that the Prince of the Apostles transferred his See from Antioch to Rome "iubente Domino," and that the location of the principal seat of the Christian priesthood in the "caput et domina totius mundi" was to be attributed to Divine Providence.[2] A century later, the Cardinal John de Turrecremata insisted that a special command of Christ had made Rome the primatial See of the Catholic Church.[3] Turrecremata argued that this action on the part of Our Lord made it impossible for even the Sovereign Pontiff himself to detach the primacy from Peter's own local Church in the Eternal City. Later Thomas de Vio Cardinal Cajetan taught that St. Peter had established his See at Rome by Our Lord's express command.[4]

The Counter-Reformation theologians took up this question in much greater detail. Dominic Soto sponsored the teaching, previously attacked by Turrecremata, to the effect that the fixing of the primatial See at Rome was attributable only to St. Peter, in his capacity as the head of the universal Church.[5] Thus Soto held that any one of St. Peter's successors in the Supreme Pontificate could, if he so chose, transfer the primatial See to some other city, in exactly the same way and with exactly the same authority St. Peter had used in bringing the primacy from Antioch to Rome.

Soto's solution of this question never obtained any considerable foothold in scholastic ecclesiology. His contemporary, the ever-truculent Melchoir Cano, derided the contention that, since there is no scriptural evidence in favor of any divine command that the primatial See should have been established in Rome, St. Peter's transfer from Antioch to Rome must be attributed only to St. Peter's own choice.[6] He employed the occasion of this teaching to bring out his own teaching on the importance of tradition as a source of revelation and as a locus theologicus.

The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important development in St. Robert Bellarmine's Controversies. St. Robert devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari. His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.[7]

In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as "a pious and most probable teaching" the opinion that "Peter's cathedra could not be taken away from Rome,"[8] and that, for this reason, the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert appealed to the doctrine that "God Himself has ordered Peter's Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome."[9]

St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in Rome might have been merely a kind of "inspiration" from God, rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."[10]

Gregory of Valentia, however, taught that Soto's opinion on this subject was singularis nec vero satis tuta.[11] Adam Tanner believed the thesis that "the supreme authority to govern the Church has been inseparably joined to the Roman See by direct and divine institution and law," though not a doctrine of faith, was still something which could not be denied absque temeritate.[12] In his Tractatus de fide Suarez taught that it seemed more probable and "pious" to say that St. Peter had joined the primacy over the entire Church militant to the See of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own precept and will. Suarez believed, however, that St. Peter received no such order from Christ prior to the Ascension.[13] The outstanding seventeenth century theologians, Francis Sylvius and John Wiggers also subscribed to the opinion that the primacy was permanently attached to the local Church of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own command.[14]

The status of this thesis was further improved when Pope Benedict XIV inserted it into his De synodo diocesana.[15] Pope Benedict believed that St. Peter had chosen the Roman Church either at Our Lord's command, or on his own authority, acting under divine inspiration or guidance. Billuart taught that Rome was chosen as a result of Our Lord's own direct instruction.[16] John Perrone taught that no human authority could transfer the primacy over the universal Church from the See of Rome.[17]

In more recent times interest in this particular thesis has centered around the question of the manner in which God had joined the primacy to the episcopate of the local Church of Rome. Some, like Dominic Palmieri, consider it probable that St. Peter received a divinely revealed mandate to establish his See permanently at Rome before he assumed the leadership of the local Church of the Eternal City."[18] Others, like Reginald Schultes, believe such an antecedent command most unlikely, but insist that an explicit divine mandate to this effect was probably given to St. Peter prior to his martyrdom.[19] Still others, like Cardinal Franzelin and Bishops Felder and D'Herbigny, give it as their opinion that St. Peter's final choice of Rome was brought about by a movement of divine grace or inspiration of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of any transfer of the primatial See from Rome at any subsequent time.[20] Cardinal Billot taught that Rome held its position dispositione divina, and that this thesis, though not yet defined, was unquestionably capable of definition.[21] It is interesting to note that Gerard Paris wrote that more probably the primacy over the universal Church was joined to the episcopate of Rome iure divino, saltem indirecto.[22] The possibility of such an indirect divine mandate has not been generally considered in the recent literature of scholastic ecclesiology.

An overwhelming majority of theologians since the Vatican Council has upheld the thesis that, in one way or another, the primacy is permanently attached to the local Church of Rome iure divino. Within this majority we find such outstanding ecclesiologists as Cardinal Camillus Mazzella, Bonal, Tepe, Crosta, De Groot, Hurter, Dorsch, Manzoni, Bainvel, Tanquerey, Herve, Michelitsch, Van Noort, and Lercher.[23] Despite the preponderance of testimony in favor of this thesis, however, Saiz Ruiz and Calcagno reject the theological arguments usually adduced in its favor, while Dieckmann refers to the question as subject to controversy.[24] Granderath makes it evident that the Vatican Council had no intention of condemning Dominic Soto's teaching in its Constitution Pastor aeternus.[25]

As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and indefectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal Church militant as Christ's vicar on earth is necessarily the head of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church over which he could rule by divine authority.

The thesis on the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome has received rather considerable development in the literature of scholastic ecclesiology. Saiz Ruiz is of the opinion that, if the city of Rome were destroyed, it would be sufficient to have the Sovereign Pontiffs retain the title of Bishop of Rome "sicut hodie episcopi in partibus."[26] The terminology of most of the other modern and classical theologians who have dealt with this question, however, involves a rejection of this contention. The bishops in partibus infidelium, properly called titular bishops since Pope Leo XIII decreed this change in terminology in his apostolic letter In supremo, of June 10, 1882, have no jurisdiction whatever over the Catholics of the locality where their ancient churches were situated. No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholastic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had particular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City.

Although some theologians, like Suarez and, in our own time Mazzella and Manzoni, hold it as probable that the material city of Rome will be protected by God's providence and will never be completely destroyed,[27] most of the others hold that this destruction is a possibility. They maintain, however, that the destruction of the buildings and even the complete uninhabitability of the city itself would in no way necessitate the destruction of the Roman local Church. Older writers like St. Robert Bellarmine were convinced that at one time the actual city of Rome was entirely without inhabitants, while the local Church, with its clergy and its bishop, continued to live.[28]

From time to time heretics have pointed to the seventeenth and the eighteenth chapters of the Apocalypse as indication that ultimately there would be no followers of Christ within the city of Rome. St. Robert admitted such a possibility at the end of the world, but pointed out the traditional interpretation of this section of the Apocalypse, particularly that popularized by St. Augustine, had nothing to do with the Roman Church during the period immediately preceding the general judgment.[29] Francis Sylvius demonstrated that any application of this section of the Apocalypse to the Roman Church was merely fanciful.[30] Modern theologians, Franzelin and Crosta in particular, have followed this procedure.[31]

Another highly important and sometimes overlooked prerogative of the local Roman Church is its infallibility. By reason of its peculiar place in the universal Church militant, this individual congregation has always been and will always be protected from corporate heresy by God's providential power. The local Church of Rome, with its bishop, its presbyterium, its clergy and its laity will exist until the end of time secure in the purity of its faith. St. Cyprian alluded to this charism when he spoke of the Catholic Romans as those "ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum."[32]

This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.

It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.

Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]

Since it is true that the local Church of Rome is infallible in its faith, and that the Holy Father is the only authoritative teacher of the local Church of Rome, it follows that he teaches infallibly when he definitely settles a question about faith or morals so as to fix or determine the belief of that local Church. Since the local Church of Rome is an effective standard for all the other local Churches, and for the universal kingdom of God on earth, in matters of belief, the Holy Father must be considered as addressing the entire Church militant, at least indirectly, when he speaks directly and definitively to the local congregation of the Eternal City. Thus it is perfectly possible to have a definition of the type described in the Vatican Council's Constitution Pastor aeternus, one in which the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, "exercising his function as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians" and so "according to his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine about faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,"[38] precisely when he speaks to determine the faith of the local Church of Rome.

It is a matter of manifest Catholic doctrine that the episcopate of the local Church of Rome and the visible primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church militant are not actually two episcopates, but constitute only one episcopal function. Today, unfortunately, we are prone to imagine that the headship of the Christian community in the city on the Tiber is something hardly more than incidental to the Sovereign Pontificate. Indicative of this tendency is the declaration of a recent and well-written book about the Holy Year, a statement to the effect that "One of the Holy Father's titles is Bishop of Rome."[39]

Such a statement is not erroneous, but it might well be considered somewhat misleading. "Bishop of Rome" is not merely one of the titles of the Holy Father, it is actually the name of the office which constitutes him as St. Peter's successor and as the Vicar of Christ on earth. And, when the same volume speaks of "the return of the Apostolic See to Rome,"[40]" with reference to the end of the residence of the Popes in Avignon, it is using a definitely bad terminology. The Apostolic See, the cathedra Petri, never left the Eternal City. The men who ruled the Church from Avignon were just as truly the Bishops of Rome as any others among the successors of St. Peter. It is precisely by reason of the inseparable residence within it of the Cathedra Petri that the local Church of Rome possesses its extraordinary privileges and charisms within the Church militant.

1 The Provida mater ecclesia was issued on Feb. 2, 1947. The translation of this passage is that of Bouscaren in his Canon Law Digest: Supplement through 1948 (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1949), p. 66.

2 Cf. De statu et planctu ecclesiae, I, a. 40, in Iung, Un Franciscain, theologien du pouvoir pontifical au XIV' siecle: Alvaro Pelayo, Eveque et Penitencier de Jean XXII (Paris: Vrin, 1931), p. III.

4 Cf. Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii, c. 13, in Pollet's edition of Cajetan's Scripta theologica (Rome: Angelicum, 1935), 1, 299.

6 Cf. De locis theologicis, Lib. VI, c. 8, in the Opera theologica (Rome: Filiziani, 1900), II, 44.

7 Cf. De controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos (Cologne, 1620), I, col. 811.

14 Cf. Sylvius' De praecipuis fidei nostrae orthodoxae controversiis cum nostris haereticis, Lib. IV, q. I, a. 6, in D'Elbecque's edition of Sylvius' Opera omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 297; Wigger's Commentaria de virtutibus theologicis (Louvain, 1689), p. 63.

15 Cf. De synodo diocesana, Lib. II, c. I, in Migne's Theologiae cursus completus (Paris, 1840), XXV, col. 825.

16 Cf. Billuart's Tractatus de regulis fidei, diss. 4, a. 4, in the Summa Sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata sive cursus theologiae juxta mentem Divi Thomae (Paris: LeCoffre, 1904), V, 171 f.

17 Cf. Perrone's Tractatus de locis theologicis, pars I, c. 2, in his Praelectiones theologicae in compendium redactae (Paris, 1861), 1, 135.

18 Cf. Palmieri's Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomena de ecclesia (Prado, 1891), pp. 416 ff.

19 Cf. Schultes' De ecclesia catholica praelectiones apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux, 1931), pp. 450 ff.

20 Cf. Franzelin's Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887), pp. 210 ff.; Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1923), II, 120 f.; and D'Herbigny's Theologia. de ecclesia (Paris: Beauchesne, 1927), II, 213 ff.

21 Cf. Billot's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: Gregorian University, 1927), 1, 613 f.

22 Cf. Paris' Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Turin: Marietti, 1929), pp. 217 f.

23 Cf. Card. Mazzella's De religione et ecclesia praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, 6th edition (Prado, 1905), pp. 731 ff.; Bonal's Institutiones theologiae ad usum seminariorum, 16th edition (Toulouse, 1887), 1, 422 ff.; Tepe's Institutiones theologicae in usum scholarum (Paris: Lethielleux, 1894), 1, 307 f.; Crosta's Theologia dogmatica in usum scholarum, 3rd edition (Gallarate: Lazzati, 1932), 1, 309 ff.; De Groot's Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica, 3rd edition (Regensburg, 1906), pp. 575 ff.; Hurter's Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 2nd edition (Innsbruck, 1878), 1, 332; Dorsch's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1928), II, 229; Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Turin: Berruti, 1928), 1, 263; Bainvel's De ecclesia Christi (Paris: Beauchesne, 1925), p. 201; Tanquerey's Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, 24th edition (Paris: Desclee, 1937), p. 492; Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition (Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1934), 1, 401; Michelitsch's Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis, 3rd edition (Vienna: Styria, 1925), p. 378; Van Noort's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Hilversum, Holland: Brand, 1932), p. 188; and Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1934), 1, 378 ff.

24 Cf. Saiz Ruiz, Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis (Burgos, 1906), pp. 430 ff.; Calcagno, Theologia fundamentalis (Naples: D'Auria, 1948), pp. 229 f,; and Dieckmann, De ecclesia tractatus historico-dogmatici (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925), 1, 437 f.

25 Cf. Granderath, Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecumenici Concilli Vaticani ex ipsis eius actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1892), pp. 137 ff. Although Soto's teaching has not been condemned, the doctrine according to which the primacy could be taken away from Rome by the action of a general council or of the populace as a whole was proscribed by Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. Cf. DB. 1735.

27 Cf. Suarez, op. cit., p. 198; Mazzella, op. cit., p. 738; Manzoni, op. cit., p. 264.

31 Cf. Franzelin, op. cit., pp. 213 f.; Crosta, op. cit., p. 312, quotes Franzelin on this question. It is interesting to note that the doctrines of these scholastics coincide with the teachings of the exegete Allo on this subject. Cf. his Saint Jean: L'Apocalypse, 3rd edition (Paris: Gabalda, 1933), pp. 264 ff.

34 Cf. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (Louvain, 1530), lib. 4, c. 3, pp. 549 ff.

39 Cf. Fenichell and Andrews, The Vatican and Holy Year (New York: Halcyon House, 1950). p. 89.

How do you reconcile this with your opinion that the Novus Ordo is a heretical and sacrilegious Mass?

This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.
It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]

Let me put this charitably, you are "copy and pasting" from some unmentioned layman's personal opinion, my guess is Steven Hand, and it is meaningless dribble.

I have posted instead on this thread, Apostolic Constitutions of Holy Roman Pontiffs, and from canonized Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church learned works on this subject, including the original Latin, Italian and French texts, and their exact source and location.

You are correct that the Church cannot err. Your conclusion is that the novus is therefore correct. Wrong. The correct answer is that the novus ordo missae, and those who promulgated it, are in now way part of the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church - rather they are of satan, as are their works.

gbcdoj is one of the n00bs that enjoys coming in here as of late to constantly stir the pot, bait and harass traditional Catholics and those who worship in Society chapels. The other is listed right after him.

Every single one of the articles they post are obsessively geared toward the trad/Rome flamewars that most around here have put aside as of late in the name of harmony.

Note how famliar they seem with this forum and posting here and how such doesn't coincide with their joined date.

They're deceptive trolls and/or re-treads banees and should be regarded as such. One even admitted to "sharing a desk at work" with banned poster Steven Hand after being put on the spot.

They think they're clever but they're not. If the mods can't or won't deal with them, let them be known for what they are.

hey, no need for ad hominem attacks.

I have no relation, at all, with "McClave". I have never met him, Stephen Hand, or any of the writers of the site "Traditional catholic reflections" nor corresponded with any of them in any way, except perhaps on this board. This is my only account I have ever had on this forum, and as for the supposed familiarity - this is accounted for by the fact that I registered on Jan 1 and posted first on March 14 - about the "separation of church and state" (supporting the position of Bl. Pius IX) and not about anything to do with the Society or any other traditionalist group.

Viva Christo Rey is not a SSPXer - he is a sedevacantist. At the very least a material schismatic according to the Society (cf. Sedevacantism), which believes that the Pope is actually a Pope and expelled the sedevacantist "Society of St. Pius V" members. Surely you have nothing against attempting to assist a schismatic out of his schism, or defending Blessed John XXIII from the totally unwarranted charge of contumacious heresy!

Let me put this charitably, you are "copy and pasting" from some unmentioned layman's personal opinion, my guess is Steven Hand, and it is meaningless dribble.

It is from a 1950 article by Msgr. Joseph Fenton (as is clearly stated in the OP), conservative and arch-enemy of Fr. John Courtney-Murray and his theses on religious liberty. He served with Cardinal Ottaviani on the preparatory commission for Vatican II which produced the document on "Religious Tolerance" rejected by the Council. As CatherineSiena posted:

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent theologians of 20th Century America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation under the revered theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. He also defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation," and upheld the traditional Papal Teaching on the Confessional State.

The fact that you don't know who he is indicates that you have not even read Michael Davies' book on religious liberty - yet you have the audacity to judge the Supreme Pontiff a heretic!

You'd do better if you read the article. It has an interesting part which states the proposition "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" was condemned as manifest heresy by Pope Sixtus IV. This thesis is exactly the error of Luther:

For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world -- as you are not ignorant -- than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness...

And it is exactly the thesis you hold! But as is pointed out - the Roman Church is indefectible and infallible. This means the diocese of Rome will persevere until the end of time. And this is what proves the error of the sedevacantist heresy - it holds that the local Church of Rome has fallen into error - for as Pius XII points out in Mediator Dei: "let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief" (§48) - and ceased to be part of "the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church".

Is there any way to get ahold of old copies of the American Ecclesiastical Review? The individual articles I've read from it are outstanding (including contributions by Ottaviani) and there are few writings you can find these days that are comparable in breadth and scope (the possible exception being John McCarthy and Brian Harrison's work for the Roman Theological Forum).

It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet. At a time where Catholic Universities have stripped the title "theologian" of any useful meaning, the wisdom of dedicated Catholic theologians of a generation past are welcome and necessary.

Is there any way to get ahold of old copies of the American Ecclesiastical Review? The individual articles I've read from it are outstanding (including contributions by Ottaviani)

You could try emailing the Catholic Culture staff - they must have gotten copyright permission and the articles from someone. CUA Press might still have old copies. I agree, the articles in the journal which have been put online are brilliant.

I did find this: "Vols. 16-169 (last publ.). 1897-1975. Bound" for $2500. Bit expensive...it gives an email to ask for quotes on individual issues though.

It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet.

Yep.

You could try emailing the Catholic Culture staff

This site looked promising until I realized it was the old PetersNet site. I still find their rating system quite amusing, particularly its combination of dire "fidelity" warnings according to a strange set of standards (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=114 or http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=997) with critiques of site usability and user interface (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=863). They also put a large amount of emphasis on what other sites a site they review links to (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=334).

Does anyone else have an opinion on this rating system?

.....bait and harass traditional Catholics...

Huh? On the defense now?

I thought we were defending the Pope!

Is this an SSPX-Sede-Gruner-Feeneyite-Whatever private club?

Did we come in the wrong door?

I thought this was a "Religion" section? Show us (orthodox, Roman, Catholics) where we are allowed to post as Freepers and we'll stay there since you can't follow an argument without obsessively bringing up Steven Hand or whomever the heck freaks you out....

we're are happy to discuss theology with you, if you can stick to the issues and stop with the names, names, names. Stop the namby pamby.

OK then, admit you're a troll or Steven Hand himself and I'll stop the "namby pamby". Until then I'll consider you a dishonest poster with an agenda. Are you writing from the computer you admittedly share with him tonight?

BTW, when you say "we're" who are you referring to? Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.

If your intentions are good so be it. You may be a nice person but so far you seem obsessed with trads. We have enough of those around and your posts have not been limited to sedevacantists.

It's like a syndrome. For some reason there are people who feel the need to judge, attack, correct, hound and badger traditionalist Catholics of all stripes. It doesn't come across as heartfelt concern for a brother's soul either, it comes across as neurotic and mean spirited at times.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and worry about the homos, power mongers, apostates, heretics, clowns and whatever else. Once we take care of them we can worry about those who worship Jesus devoutly. Even if they may not be doing it correctly in your view.

....OK then, admit you're a troll or Steven Hand himself

(Posing like Reagan) There you go again! I'm only an elf (but a heterosexual one!) Why are you so obsessed?

Quotheth, he, again: Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.

So much for free speech. You want to excommunicate, excommunicate...cast into the outer darkness... It must be a papal fantasy, born of too much private judgement and heaping doses of The Angelus Magazine.

Watch out or you'll be donning the robes and mitre, don't ya know? You won't be the first either...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.