The Charism of Infallibility

[Cam42]

NEWMAN, Orat., John Henry (1801-1890)

Birth. February 21, 1801, London, England. The eldest of the six children of John Newman, a banker, and Jemina Foundrinier, a descendent of the Huguenots who migrated from France after the revokation fo the Edict of Nantes. Baptized in the Church of England, April 9, 1801. He converted to Calvinism at the age of 15, August-December, 1816.

Education. Trinity College, Oxford, 1816-1822; elected a fellow at Oriel College, Oxford, April 12, 1822; ordained to the diaconate, June 13, 1824; curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, 1824-1826; ordained priest of the Church of England, May 29, 1825, Christ Church, Oxford; vice-principal at St. Mary's Hall, 1825; vicar of St. Mary's (also the university church), 1828. resigned his tutorship, 1832 and went on a trip around the Mediterranean (December, 1832-July, 1833); returned to Oxford. With the Assize sermon on "National Apostasy" by John Keble, on July 14, 1833, the Oxford Movement was born. The religious opinions and principles of the Movement toward High Church principles in opposition to liberalizing and evangelical tendencies and emphasizing the principles of primitive and patristic Chirstianity as well as the historic and catholic character of the church, were given in a series of 90 papers called the Tracts for the Times, published in Oxford from 1833 to 1841. Newman became the leader of the Tractarian Movement, as it was also known. Resigned from St. Mary's in 1843. On October 9, 1845 he converted to Catholicism and was received into the Church in Littlemore by Fr. Domenico Barberi, an Italian Passionist (1).

Priesthood. Ordained, May 30, 1847, Rome, by Cardinal Giacomo Flippo Fransoni. Returned to England in 1847 and established the Oratory of St. Philip Neri; set up the London house and began mission work in Birmingham; later moved to Edgbaston. Rector of the Catholic University of Ireland, 1851-1858. Editor of the Rambler, May-July, 1859. Issued his most famous work, Apologia pro Vita sua, in seven parts, April 21-June 2, 1864. He opposed that the Fist Vatican Council (1869-1870) would issue a document of papal infallibility He was not opposed to the concept but felt that the doctrine should be given more time to mature before it was codified. Once the doctrine was proclaimed, he strongly defended it. For many years he endured attacks and criticism from within and whithout the Church. Returned to Oxford as honorary fellow of Trinity College, February, 1878.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal decon in the consistory of May 12, 1879; received the red hat and the deaconry of San Giorgio in Velabro, May 15, 1879. The most famous and illustrious English convert, his life and thought are well documented through 21,000 of his personal letters that have survived as well as the 40 books that he published.

Death. August 11, 1890, Edgbaston, Birmingham, England. Exposed in the Oratory of St. Philip of Edgbaston and buried in the chapel of the village of Rednal, in the same tomb with Ambrose St. John.

Beatification. The cause for his beatification was opened in 1958. Pope John Paul II signed the document acknowledging he practiced the Christian virtues in a heroic degree and declared him Venerable, January 22, 1991.

Not a bishop....but a Cardinal......

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']
Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.

RESPONSE:

No. Newman elected to remain a Catholic bishop and so had to accept the "dogma" of infallibility. Good career move!

However, some other bishops did not. Obviously, they could not then remain Catholic bishops. Those dissenting from the "dogma" of papal infallibility formed their own Church which continues to this day.

An Old Catholic History...

The history of the Old Catholic Movement within Catholicism is significant for our faith community because it is from the Old Catholic Church that the Ecumenical Catholic Communion her apostolic succession and her distinctive theological orientation. This article was written by an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York.


"In Switzerland in 1876 Bishop Herzog was consecrated Bishop of the Old Catholic Movement there. Thus the scattered fragments of Christ’s Church were gathered together. In time the movement developed sufficiently in other parts of the world to warrant the necessity of Episcopal supervision and gradually the jealously guarded Catholic Episcopate came to bless these faithful children of the Catholic Church of Christ in increasing numbers everywhere.

In Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Switzerland, France, Yugoslavia and Poland the movement grew and took root and Bishops were consecrated at Utrecht, Holland, for almost all these countries."

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:12 AM'][quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']
Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. Newman elected to remain a Catholic bishop and so had to accept the "dogma" of infallibility. Good career move!

However, some other bishops did not. Obviously, they could not then remain Catholic bishops. Those dissenting from the "dogma" of papal infallibility formed their own Church which continues to this day.

An Old Catholic History...

The history of the Old Catholic Movement within Catholicism is significant for our faith community because it is from the Old Catholic Church that the Ecumenical Catholic Communion her apostolic succession and her distinctive theological orientation. This article was written by an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York.
"In Switzerland in 1876 Bishop Herzog was consecrated Bishop of the Old Catholic Movement there. Thus the scattered fragments of Christ’s Church were gathered together. In time the movement developed sufficiently in other parts of the world to warrant the necessity of Episcopal supervision and gradually the jealously guarded Catholic Episcopate came to bless these faithful children of the Catholic Church of Christ in increasing numbers everywhere.

In Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Switzerland, France, Yugoslavia and Poland the movement grew and took root and Bishops were consecrated at Utrecht, Holland, for almost all these countries."
[right][snapback]646308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Cardinal Newman was not a bishop....so you are flawed from the get go.....being a bishop has no bearing the life of Cardinal Newman. I assume that this is a recant of your statement about Cardinal Newman then? Good.

And as far as Bishop Herzog is concerned, was in schism just as Archbishop Lefevbre was. Just as all those who are part of the Old Catholic movement. But then again, you already know that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Sorry, CAM. Once again I thought that you were familiar with Catholic history. Isn't basic Church history part of any theology curriculum?

The quotation I used was from the Catholic Encyclopedia (False Decretals).

(The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore)

"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection."

One group of these groups includes:

" A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. "


Have you ever heard of this one?

Donation of Constantine
(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

"By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world."

This dates me, but I was still being taught by the good sisters in Catholic elementary school that the Donation of Constantine was for real (and not a Church forgery).

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']

Oh, Cardinal Newman was never a bishop.  Sorry Charlie....that argument holds no water.
[right][snapback]646034[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:24 AM']RESPONSE:

Sorry, CAM. Once again I thought that you were familiar with Catholic history. Isn't basic Church history part of any theology curriculum?

The quotation I used was from the Catholic Encyclopedia (False Decretals).

(The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore)

"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection."

One group of these groups includes:

" A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. "
Have you ever heard of this one?

Donation of Constantine
(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

"By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world."

This dates me, but I was still being taught  by the good sisters in Catholic elementary school that the Donation of Constantine was for real (and not a Church forgery).

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Blah, Blah, Blah.....Catholic Encyclopedia....blah, blah, blah.....

Considering that your use of false decretals has no bearing because your quote of Aquinas is misleading, because there is no proper citing....where is it again? I have not seen your quote of Aquinas in the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1 nor have I seen it in the Secunda Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1. I quoted both earlier in this thread. Your whole premise for using false decretals is unfounded (quite literally). Try again.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:32 AM']RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am correct, there is no [i]"might"[/i] about it. Insofar as he was a Cardinal, he had the right. That is part of being a Cardinal. He was part of the governing body of the Church.

There are Cardinals today who are not bishops. This is not a novel idea. The most famous of our day is Avery Cardinal Dulles. The only major difference between the two is that Card. Dulles is over 80 and due to the rules of Paul VI, ineligible to vote.

There is no reason to research anything. your question is moot.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:34 AM']Blah, Blah, Blah.....Catholic Encyclopedia....blah, blah, blah.....

Considering that your use of false decretals has no bearing because your quote of Aquinas is misleading, because there is no proper citing....where is it again?  I have not seen your quote of Aquinas in the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1 nor have I seen it in the Secunda Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1.  I quoted both earlier in this thread.  Your whole premise for using false decretals is unfounded (quite literally).  Try again.
[right][snapback]646316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You really have to side step those "false decretals" don't you? To recognize their existence- which even the Church now admits - considerably undercuts many of the claims that apologists like make, especially about papal authority!

And regarding the Summa 2/2 question 1, perhaps you'd like to use the copy at the New Advent website. Or visit you local library and check their holdings.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 05:32 AM']RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
John Henry Newman, who was not even a Cardinal at the time, did not participate at all in the proceedings of the First Vatican Council.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:11 AM']RESPONSE:

You really have to side step those "false decretals" don't you? To recognize their existence- which even the Church now admits - considerably undercuts many of the claims that apologists like make, especially about papal authority!

And regarding the Summa 2/2 question 1, perhaps you'd like to use the copy at the New Advent website. Or visit you local library and check their holdings.
[right][snapback]646327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You can't dodge this one.....I posted it....want the links...here ya go.....you really are looking for a beat down on this one.....

[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html"]Summa Theologica[/url]
[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS001.html#SSQ1OUTP1"]Summa Theologica: Second Part of Second Part; Question 1; Article 1-10[/url]

Sorry...but you have no legs on this one.....you said earlier:
[quote name='LittleLes' date=' Yesterday, 08:00 AM ']This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”[/quote]

Nope. What you are saying comes most closely to article 10. This is what article 10 says:

[quote name='Summa Theologica II;II:1:10']Whether it belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. For a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to explain the articles of faith, as stated above (Article [9]). Now, in the Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more explained as time went on, by reason of the truth of faith becoming clearer through greater nearness to Christ, as stated above (Article [7]). Since then this reason ceased with the advent of the New Law, there is no need for the articles of faith to be more and more explicit. Therefore it does not seem to belong to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a new edition of the symbol.

Objection 2: Further, no man has the power to do what is forbidden under pain of anathema by the universal Church. Now it was forbidden under pain of anathema by the universal Church, to make a new edition of the symbol. For it is stated in the acts of the first* council of Ephesus (P. ii, Act. 6) that "after the symbol of the Nicene council had been read through, the holy synod decreed that it was unlawful to utter, write or draw up any other creed, than that which was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicaea together with the Holy Ghost," and this under pain of anathema. [*St. Thomas wrote 'first' (expunged by Nicolai) to distinguish it from the other council, A.D. 451, known as the "Latrocinium" and condemned by the Pope.] The same was repeated in the acts of the council of Chalcedon (P. ii, Act. 5). Therefore it seems that the Sovereign Pontiff has no authority to publish a new edition of the symbol.

Objection 3: Further, Athanasius was not the Sovereign Pontiff, but patriarch of Alexandria, and yet he published a symbol which is sung in the Church. Therefore it does not seem to belong to the Sovereign Pontiff any more than to other bishops, to publish a new edition of the symbol.

On the contrary, The symbol was drawn us by a general council. Now such a council cannot be convoked otherwise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as stated in the Decretals [*Dist. xvii, Can. 4,5]. Therefore it belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol.

I answer that, As stated above (OBJ 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [*Dist. xvii, Can. 5]. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Lk. 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Cor. 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1: The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since, according to 2 Pt. 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.

Reply to Objection 2: This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed.

Reply to Objection 3: Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.[/quote]

Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false. There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals." These are very valid and very sound. This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals. This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas. You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose. In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you. But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about. Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:22 AM']John Henry Newman, who was not even a Cardinal at the time, did not participate at all in the proceedings of the First Vatican Council.
[right][snapback]646333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are correct. Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Vatican I was held in 1869-1870.

Newman claimed that a declaration of papal infallibility was "inopportune." I guess you don't simply tell a pope - at least not Pope Pius IX - he's wrong>

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:41 AM']
You can't dodge this one.....I posted it....want the links...here ya go.....you really are looking for a beat down on this one.....

RESPONSE:

The New Adent link to the Summa, second part of the second part, question 1, article 10 would be:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm[/url]

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.

Hope that this helps you find the reference.

[LittleLes]

Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false. There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals." These are very valid and very sound. This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals. This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas. You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose. In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you. But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about. Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.
[right][snapback]646335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You can find this is the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, on line or at your library. The article is titled "False Decretals"
"
They were accepted to some extent by the papacy in support of its age-old claims. By incorporation and quotation in the Decretum of Gratian, the False Decretals received a definite authority in textbooks of canon law in the Middle Ages. The False Decretals have gained their chief fame because they were one of the great forgeries of history"

Perhaps you will quote and source the Decretal of Gregory IX that you claim Aquinas was referring to since you claim it is separate from the Decretum of Gratian.

It might be. It would be good to know with whom the error really lies!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:01 AM']RESPONSE:

You are correct. Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Vatican I  was held in 1869-1870.

Newman  claimed that a declaration of papal infallibility was "inopportune." I guess you don't simply tell a pope - at least not Pope Pius IX  -  he's wrong>
[right][snapback]646338[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I haven't read this entire thread and I apologize. Actually I've just scanned over a couple individual posts (including the one quoted above).

Anyway, Newman's claim that the definition of papal infallibility was "inopportune" just means he thought the timing was bad. That's not to say that he thought the pope was wrong, that's silly. I've read some of what Newman said in the past and I recall perhaps concerns about the possible articulation as well as the timeliness given the ecumenical and political milieu of the time, but the man was a faithful Catholic, I have little doubt that he would have shed his blood to defend the truth of papal infallibility. I'll get you quotes sometime when I'm more awake and inspired... if you want.

cheers

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:44 AM'][quote name='Cam42']
Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false.  There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals."  These are very valid and very sound.  This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals.  This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas.  You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose.  In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you.  But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about.  Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong.  Dead wrong.  Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.
[right][snapback]646335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][/quote]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:44 AM']RESPONSE:

You can find this is the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition,  on line or at your library. The article is titled "False Decretals"
"
They were accepted to some extent by the papacy in support of its age-old claims. By incorporation and quotation in the Decretum of Gratian, the False Decretals received a definite authority in textbooks of canon law in the Middle Ages. The False Decretals have gained their chief fame because they were one of the great forgeries of history"

Perhaps you will quote and source the Decretal of Gregory IX  that you claim Aquinas was referring to since you claim it is separate from the Decretum of Gratian.

It might be. It would be good to know with whom the error really lies!
[right][snapback]646349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?
[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia. Papal Decretals']Finally, under the name decretals are known certain collections, containing especially, but not exclusively, pontifical decretals. [b]These are the canonical collections of a later date than the "Decretum" of Gratian (about 1150).[/b] The commentators on these collections are named decretalists, in contradistinction to the decretists, or those who commented upon the "Decretum" of Gratian. [i]Eventually some of these collections received official recognition; they form what is now known as the "Corpus Juris Canonici". An account will be given here of the collections of decretals, but particularly of those of Gregory IX.[/i][/quote]

[quote name='ibid.']Gregory IX, in 1230, ordered his chaplain and confessor, St. Raymond of Peñaforte (Pennafort), a Dominican, to form a new canonical collection destined to replace all former collections. It has been said that the pope by this measure wished especially to emphasize his power over the Universal Church. The papacy had, indeed, arrived at the zenith of its power. Moreover, a pope less favourably circumstanced would, perhaps, not have thought of so important a measure. Nevertheless, the utility of a new collection was so evident that it is needless to seek other motives than those which the pope himself gives in the Bull "Rex pacificus" of 5 September, 1234, viz., the inconvenience of recurring to several collections containing decisions most diverse and sometimes contradictory, exhibiting in some cases gaps and in others tedious length; moreover, on several matters the legislation was uncertain.

St. Raymond executed the work in about four years, and followed in it the method of the aforesaid "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". He borrowed from them the order of the subject-matter, the division into five books, of the books into titles and of the titles into chapters. Of the 1971 chapters which the Decretals of Gregory IX contain, 1771 are taken from the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ", 191 are due to Gregory IX himself, 7 are taken from decretals of Innocent III not inserted in the former collections, and 2 are of unknown origin. They are arranged, as a general rule, according to the order of the ancient collections, i. e. each title opens with the chapters of the first collection, followed by those of the second, and so on in regular order; then come those of Innocent III and finally those of Gregory IX. Almost all the rubrics, or headings of the titles, have also been borrowed from these collections, but several have been modified as regards detail. This method considerably lightened St. Raymond's task. However, he did more than simply compile the documents of former collections. He left out 383 decisions, modified several others, omitted parts when he considered it prudent to do So, filled up the gaps, and, to render his collection complete and concordant, cleared up doubtful points of the ancient ecclesiastical law by adding some new decretals. He indicated by the words et infra the passages excised by him in the former collections. They are called partes decis . The new compilation bore no special title, but was called "Decretales Gregorii IX" or sometimes "Compilatio sexta", i. e. the sixth collection with reference to the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". It was also called "Collectio seu liber extra", i. e. the collection of the laws not contained (vagantes extra) in the "Decretum" of Gratian. Hence the custom of denoting this collection by the letter X (i. e. extra). [/quote]

Time to give it a rest LittleLes.....you are proven wrong. Gregory IX's decretals are what Aquinas was referencing......