As Pope Pius IX writes in Quartus Supra (On the Church in Armenia), 1873:
(Insert from: 4/2/2018 Quartus Supra - Papal Encyclicals
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm)"Authority of the Papacy
9. This fact was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the Council of
Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the
fathers, “We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion
with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it.”[11] Even more clearly and
emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in refer ring to Pyrrhus the
Monothelite, declared: “If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he toes not need to satisfy random
individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at
him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be
satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all
men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that
men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of
the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred
canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding
and loosing for all God’s holy churches in the entire world.”[12] For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople,
solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later — “that the names of those who were
separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the
Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.”[13] This plainly meant that they did not
recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a
schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.
10. Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times.
They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of
Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence.
They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the
heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the
ancient Fathers of the Church. For “the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed
Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of
judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.”[14] The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such
doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice.
Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor
of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and
condemned statements of this kind.[15] These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John
Wyclif’s which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V. Through human
weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our
predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, “for a bishop’s subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and
not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was
unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof.”[16] But if one should be afraid even of an unjust
condemnation by one’s bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against
their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless
garment of Christ, which is the Church?
11. The charity which obliges priests in particular to attend to the faithful should derive “from a pure heart and a
good conscience and faith unfeigned”[17] as the Apostle warned. In reviewing the qualities which we ought to
display as ministers of God, he also included “in charity unfeigned, in the word of truth.”[18] But Christ
Himself, however, the God who “is charity,”[19] openly declared that those who do not listen to the Church
should be regarded as gentiles and publicans.[20] And Our predecessor St. Gelasius answered Euphemius,
Bishop of Constantinople, when he stated that “the flock ought to follow the shepherd who calls them back to
safe pastures, rather than the shepherd follow the flock as it wanders off the road.”[21] For “the people must be
taught, not followed: and if they do not know, we must impress on them what is permitted and not permitted,
rather than give them our approval.”[22]
Definition of a Schismatic
12. But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives
of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867,[23]
answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the
Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the
Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny
their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been
condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and
the flock following its shepherd.[24] Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and
whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Further more, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his
Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France,[25] discipline is often closely related
to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have
unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.
Authority of the Holy See
13. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since “every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its
withdrawal from the Church.”[26] Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had
exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the
Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without
being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since
the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council:
the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council
of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly
requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned
discipline.
14. Indeed, “the successor of blessed Peter, by the very fact that he is such, has been assigned the whole flock of
Christ, so that together with his bishopric he receives the power of universal rule. Then the other bishops must
be assigned their portions of the flock so that they can rule over their flock.”[27] If the supreme authority of this
assignment to blessed Peter and his successors is rejected, the very foundations and prerogatives of the
patriarchal churches in particular would be shaken. “Even if Christ willed that Peter and the other leaders have
something in common, the other leaders have this only through Peter.”[28] “And in fact Peter himself honored
the See (of Alexandria) when he sent his disciple, the evangelist: he strengthened the See (of Antioch) which he
occupied for seven years, even though he was going to leave it.”[29] And both Anatolius,[30] Bishop of
Constantinople, and Marcian,[31] the emperor, openly acknowledged that the approval and confirmation of the
Apostolic See was altogether necessary to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the see of
Constantinople.
15. Accordingly, then, unless they abandon the unchanging and unbroken tradition of the Church which is so
clearly confirmed by testimonies of the Fathers, the neo-schismatics can in no way convince themselves that
they are Catholics even if they declare themselves such. If We did not thoroughly know the clever and subtle
deceits of heretics, it would be incomprehensible that the Ottoman regime still regards as Catholics people it
knows to be cut off from the Catholic Church by Our judgment and authority. For if the Catholic religion is to
continue safe and free in the Ottoman dominion as the Emperor has decreed, then the essence of this religion
should also be allowed, for instance the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff...."
Pope Leo XIII writes in Est Sane Molestum, 1888:
"If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of
his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose
nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would
certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority.
On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual
Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above
all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not
only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. At the same time, when the faithful
have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman
Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by
concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which
contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them.
These fundamental principles, which cannot be gainsaid without bringing in their wake
confusion and ruin in the government of the Church, We have many, many times been careful
to recall and to inculcate....
Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the
authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary
disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and
sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of
mind and heart.
But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us
once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the
teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let
them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate
these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in
prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the
authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let
them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of
Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they have
undertaken to defend and to render glorious."
Father Berry, The Church of Christ, pg 470-471:
"CUSTODIANS OF FAITH.
Even though not infallible as an individual, each bishop is the divinely constituted teacher and judge of the faith in his diocese. He is the custodian of the faith for those committed to his care; his duty is to teach and interpret the truths of revelations and to decided controverted points, when necessity requires. Consequently, his teaching and his declarations on matters of faith and morals are to be accepted, unless they are opposed to the universal teachings of the Church. Should any doubts arise on this point, it must be decided by superior authority, not by the faithful. The bishop is neither the supreme teacher nor the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals; hence, appeal may always be made to a higher tribunal; but order and unity in the Church demand that the bishop's judgment be respected until final decision has been made.