Oh? Says who? When the Anglicans tried to build a church in the papal states, your supreme pontiff told them that heresy has no rights.Says I and any other fair-mided person who cherishes his freedom to worship as his conscience dictates.
Ah, a true Scottsman I see!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
That leaves out your Angelic Doctor.
You know very well that the Vatican did not hold religious freedom in high regard. Or perhaps you didn't. Or don't want to face that? Havn't you read the Summa Theologica?
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3
Or are you saying that your ecclesial community began in 1962? We know that the disciples of Aquinas in the 19th century embraced the idea of "development of doctrine," but nothing in the documents of Vatican II prevent it from developing back to its Thomist roots.
On him your supreme pontiff says
No true Catholic has ever ventured to call in question the opinion of the Angelic Doctorhttp://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/doctoris.htm
Speaking of cherishing the freedom to worship as his conscience dictates
And the Anglicans now have two parishes in Rome and 10 in the rest of Italy.
You will notice that the Vatican had to be defanged in 1870 for that to happenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara#Reaction_and_opposition
How about the Greeks? If the English can have their pro-cathedral and bishop in the Archdeaconry of Italy and Malta, why not the Greeks who are native to Italy and Malta (both Greek names) having their own bishop? Indeed, supposedly your supreme pontiffs had that very idea:
The Italo-Greeks are subject to the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops; several times, but in vain, they have sought exemption. However, the popes have long wished them to have a titular archbishop, resident in Rome, for the ordination of their priests, and to lend splendour to Divine service. The first of these was Gabriele, titular Archbishop of Mitylene. When Clement XII established the Corsini College, he placed it in charge of a resident bishop or archbishop of the Greek Rite.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08206a.htm
If the North African Pope St. Victor could introduce Latin into Roman rite after its first century had passed, why couldn't the Italo-Greeks preserve the original Greek, not replaced by Latin until after three centuries? They had their own school and plenty of monasteries in Rome itself. They still have (continuously since before the schism of 1054) a monastery at Grottaferrata in Rome, a half hour from Vatican City, why can't they have a bishop there, a bishop, or rather, patriarch of Rome? What about the Albanians who now make up most of the flock of the "Italo-Greek Catholic Church"? Can't they have their own bishop of Rome?
Can the Italo-Greek/Albanians go off to Rome and set up their see? The Ukrainians in submission to the Vatican went off to Kiev, and, despite lacking canonical authority to do so, they did get the Curia to rubber stamp it, and they are trying to erect a patriarch the same way, the canons they supposedly accept be damned. Why can't the Italo-Greek/Albanians do likewise?
The Vatican had no problem with setting up four patriarchs in Antioch-Latin, Melkite, Syriac and Maronite, only one of which is native to Antioch itself. Why not a "Greek Catholic" Patriarch of Rome and "Albanian Catholic" Patriarch of Rome? After all, the official title, given and recognized by the Vatican is "Italian Byzantine-Catholic Church," and did not the Metropolitan of Italy resided at Rome traditionally?
Why does the Milanese rite not have its own "sui juris" status? Before the promulgation of ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, the 22 "sui juris" were just rites like the Ambrosian: that the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium lumps all 22 non-Latin "sui juris churches" together while giving them "sui juris" status gives the Milanese (and Mozarabic, Bragan, etc.) the basis for such status under the Code of Canon Law. Or it should. The Milanese had their bishop of Rome (Paul VI) presiding over Vatican II. Why shouldn't the Milanese rite, which numbers in the millions in Italy-more in fact than ANY of the 22 Eastern "sui juris churches"-have its own Patriarch of Rome, like the Vatican approves the Melkites, Syriacs, Maronites (the distance from Antioch to Mt. Lebanon being comparable to the distance from Rome to the Diocese of Milan, and the distance from Milan to Rome being almost exactly that of Lviv to Kiev) and (formerly) the Latins/Crusaders (which still have their church in Antioch) all putting their own patriarch on the chair of St. Peter at Antioch?
Since the Vatican has made the Albanian Use, Belarus Use, Bulgarian Use, Croatian Use, Greek Use, Hungarian Use, Macedonian Use, Melkite Use, Romanian Use, Russian Use, Ruthenian Use, Slovak Use and Ukrainian Use into their own "sui juris churches," what is to prevent the "Anglican Use" from demanding the same? The Ukrainians seem to think that they can elevate their "sui juris church" into a "patriarchate" with the Vatican, why can't the Anglicans elevate their Use to "sui juris" and translate their bishop to Rome, like the UGCC went from Lviv to Kiev, and have their own Anglican Patriarch of Rome? After all, the "the Anglicans now have two parishes in Rome and 10 in the rest of Italy."
The Russian "sui juris church" doesn't even have as much in all of much larger Russia, and yet they demand bishops, and no doubt, imitating their Ukrainian kin, will demand their own Patriarch of Moscow as well. In fact, as the "Russian Catholic sui juris church" has a church in Rome itself, and the Vatican looks to the 49 Russian Orthodox parishes in Italy to join its "Russian Catholic sui juris church," maybe they should demand their own Russian Patriarch of Rome. He should take his place next to the Romanian Patriarch of Rome:despite the Italian bishops banning married Romanian priests and the Vatican saying nothing, the Romanians in Italy in submission to Rome are outnumbered only by the Romanians the Vatican seeks to have submit to it, who have their own bishop in Rome already.
Now, some may argue that the Patriarchate of Rome (since it abolished its title for the West) has its own "sui juris" nature, which precludes the Greeks, Albanians, Milanese, Romanians, Russians and "Anglo-Catholics" from having their own patriarch of Rome. But Jerusalem having its own autocephaly (of which "sui juris" status is an imitation) confirmed by Ecumenical Council did not stop the Vatican from reducing it to a mere Latin diocese. The Melkite Patriarch of Antioch takes the title of Patriarch of Jerusalem and has far, far more followers than the Latin archbishop of Jerusalem, but without "sui juris" status. The Melkites of Jerusalem and the patriarchate could easily form a "sui juris church," and it would, if the Vatican played by the same rules it demands of others.
And then there is that problem the bishops of the middle east of the "sui juris churches" brought up in their synod at the Vatican, that they are not allowed to act in the West as the Latin "sui juris" is allowed to act in the East, e.g. married priests.
So when the physician in Rome heals itself, and has an Ambrosian, an Italo-Greek, an Italo-Albanian, a Romanian, a Russian and an Anglican Patriarch in Rome like it has multiplied in Antioch (and other patriarchates of the East. Divide et impera), let the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in submission to it regain at least a "sui juris" status, and has its Latin bishops in the East constrained as the "sui juris" Easterners are in the West and allow the other 22 primates to act as the primate of the number 1, i.e. Latin Roman, and give "sui juris" status to its own Western Uses as it has to the Eastern, as well as to the non-Roman rites in the West-i.e. act as it demands everyone else act-then we can talk about "other fair-mided person who cherishes his freedom to worship as his conscience dictates."
I expect that we'll see before that a sui juris Ukrainian Kievan Patriarchate and a sui juris UAOC alongside the UGCC and the Ruthenians. If the Latin ordinary whose see is in Kiev
(built in Czarist times, btw) doesn't swallow them first. Who really has jurisdiction over Ukraine according to the Vatican, Abp. Peter Herkulan Malczuk of Kiev, Abp. Mieczysław Mokrzycki of Lviv (who sits here)
(never closed nor taken by the Orthodox or Soviets) or Mjrabp. Sviatoslav Shevchuk?