Dear Forum Members,
Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Does anyone know where one can find the bull of Pope Pius IX, Reversurus, in english, or even in latin-the bull which caused a veritable STORM among the Armenians and other Eastern Catholics? If it is NOT available, does anyone know what exactly Reversurus consisted of-what exactly were the Vatican's infringements on the rights of the Eastern Churches?
Thank You!

See this link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quartu.htm

33. "We will add some remarks on Our prohibition of the enthronement of Patriarchs before Holy See. The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff..." WOW!
Thank You Paul! With this, and the rest I read...now wonder there was such an uproar!

"To put it crudely, I prefer to be robbed at gun point by an ordinary street mugger, than to be cheated by some "benevolent" despot who tries to convince me that he is defrauding me for my own good."-Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos

God save us from Popes like Pius IX & the Vatican's past, and current, practice. May Our Lord convert Rome.

"We must above all point to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, which was never disavowed in the least, and the practice consonant to it as evident in the actions of the popes and the Roman Curia, namely, that the Roman Pontiff is an absolute monarch, though he may not always behave as such, whose power is limited solely by divine law as he himself defines it. He is above the bishops even when they are assembled in an ecumenical council. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to speak that a 'union' had been concluded between a specific Eastern Church and a certain pope. Union implies some degree of equality between these Churches. Whenever the pope is the party of the first part, the only correct term is submission.
It is naivete to mention the promises made by one pope at the time, e.g., of the Union of Brest (1596) and point to the fact that the Roman Curia blithely ignored them. The bishops of Brest submitted to Pope Clement VIII an Act of Reunion dated June 11, 1595, in which Article 9 expressly stipulated that 'Matrimonia sacerdotalia ut integra constent.' The pope accepted this condition in the Constitution, Magnus Dominus of December 23, 1595. However, what one pope has promised does not bind him, and even less his successors. The party of the second part, the specific Eastern Catholic Church, relinquishes at the time of 'union' or, more correctly, submission, any and all rights except those which are graciously granted by the pope in office."
-Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, J.C.D., Sc. Eccl. Orient. L., "Compulsory Celibacy for the Eastern Catholics in the Americas," first published in Diakonia, issue 2 & 3, 1976, then reprinted in Toronto as a separate brochure.

As with any work, one has to take the context of the time of writing into account - 1976, before Orientale Lumen , not much implementation of the portions of Vatican II relating to the Eastern Churches, general ignorance of Eastern Catholics by Latins, and not long after the fracus caused by some Latin bishops concerning the restoration of ordaining married men in Canada by the UGCC. Fr. Dr. Victor was reportedly much more hopeful after Magnum Baptismi donum and The Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest by Blessed John Paul II as well as the Papal visit.

RC,

I'm uncertain from whence you conclude that this encyclical Quartus Supra had such an effect - particularly among Armenians. Admittedly, phrases quoted surely show a papal attitude of superiority with respect to the Eastern Churches.

However, the encyclical was not directed to or toward the Armenian Catholic Patriarch Anthony Petros IX - nor against the then-incumbent Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople, Mkrtich, nor against either of the Armenian Catholicoi (George IV of Holy Echtmiadzin or Megerdich of Cilicia). It was, effectively, an anathema hurled against Jakob, an anti-Patriarch, whose supporters were seeking to undermine the lawful Catholic patriarchate of Anthony Petros IX.

So, while one can decry the terminology employed, it hardly evokes the rancor that resulted from the later proclamations that divided the Eastern Catholics in the US or those earlier proclamations that promised the Eastern Churches an equality of Rite but were ignored, never carried through, or outright violated.

I'd wager that one would be hard-pressed to find a half-dozen militant Eastern or Oriental Catholics who could get in a lather over this particular encyclical - and less than that number of Armenian Catholics in particular. It's a rather narrowly addressed document that pretty much rests in obscurity.

Much more bothersome, although again little known, is an encyclical which preceded this one by a year or so - Quae In Patriarchatu. In it, Pius IX took to task the Patriarch and Catholicos of Babylon of the Chaldees for an attempt to extend his canonical authority over the Malabarese (then subjugated by the Latins). It also firmly entrenched Rome's use of a terna to approve episcopal candidates selected by the Chaldean Holy Synod.

Many years,

Neil

1976? Now THAT is ancient history? Where does that leave T/tradition?