Here is the whole docuмent (having trouble copying and pasting):


SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

• The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
  
  • in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
  • determined to build a church
  • in which,
    
    • as in the house of the living God,
  • all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
    
    • faith and
    • charity.
• Therefore, before he was glorified,
  
  • he besought his Father,
    
    • not for the apostles only,
    • but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
    that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
• So then,
  
  • just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
  • even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
  • in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
• In order, then, that
  
  • the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
  • by the union of the clergy,
  • the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
    
    • faith and
    • communion,
  • he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
  • instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
  • their visible foundation.
• Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
• And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
  
  • we judge it necessary,
    
    • with the approbation of the sacred council, and
    • for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
  • to propound the doctrine concerning the
    
    • institution,
    • permanence and
    • nature
  • of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
  • upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
• This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
• Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.

Return to Table of Contents
Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

• We teach and declare that,
  
  • according to the gospel evidence,
  • a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
  • was immediately and directly
    
    • promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
    • conferred on him by Christ the lord.
  [PROMISED]
• It was to Simon alone,
  
  • to whom he had already said
    
    • You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
  that the Lord,
  
  • after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
  spoke these words:
  
  • Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
  • And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
  [CONFERRED]
• And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
  
  • after his resurrection,
  confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
  
  • Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
• To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
• The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
• Therefore,
  
  • if anyone says that
    
    • blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
    • it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
    let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents
Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

• That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
• For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
• Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
• For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
• Therefore,
  
  • if anyone says that
    
    • it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
    • the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
    let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

• And so,
  
  • supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
  • adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
    
    • the Roman pontiffs and of
    • general councils,
  • we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical council of Florence [49] ,
  • which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
    
    • the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
    • the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
      
      • the prince of the apostles,
      • true vicar of Christ,
      • head of the whole church and
      • father and teacher of all christian people.
    • To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
      
      • tend,
      • rule and govern
      • the universal church.
  All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons.
• Wherefore we teach and declare that,
  
  • by divine ordinance,
  • the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
  • this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
    
    • episcopal and
    • immediate.
  • Both clergy and faithful,
    
    • of whatever rite and dignity,
    • both singly and collectively,
  • are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
    
    • not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
    • but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
• In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
• This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
• This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51]
• Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
• And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
  
  • this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
  • it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
• Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
  
  • he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
  • in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
  • The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
  • nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
  • they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
• So, then,
  
  • if anyone says that
    
    • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
      
      • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
      • not only in matters of
        
        • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
        • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
    • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
    • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
    let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

• That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
  
  • This holy see has always maintained this,
  • the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
  • the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
  [councils]
• So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
  
  • The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
  What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
  
  • “The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
  Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
  
  • “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]
  [Holy See]
• To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.[Custom]
• It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .[Holy See]
• The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
  
  • sometimes by
    
    • summoning ecuмenical councils or
    • consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
    • special synods, sometimes by
    • taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
  • defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
    
    • sacred scripture and
    • the apostolic traditions.
• For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
  
  • not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
  • but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
  
  • embraced by all the venerable fathers and
  • reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
  for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
• This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
• But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
• Therefore,
  
  • faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
  • to the glory of God our saviour,
  • for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
  • for the salvation of the christian people,
  • with the approval of the sacred council,
    

    ---

  • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    
    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      
      • that is, when,
      • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
      • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
      • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    • he possesses,
      
      • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    ---

  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

That is not what it says or implies at all. Per Vi, the *only* time the pope is prevented from the possibility of preaching error via the divine protection, is when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. That is the defined dogma.

That's the dogma, and they even repeat it twice because they wanted to be sure that there can be no mistaking it, because can you imagine the scandal it would cause for the faithful to believe that popes cannot preach heresy? We'd have all the faithful going along with V2....

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that  when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

Should the pope preach heresy, he does not have divine protection. That's what it says, as you posted: "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

They are not saying that the pope cannot preach heresies, what they ARE saying is that IF a pope  preaches heresies, he will not be under any protection from Holy Ghost.

What you are referring to in Pastor Aeternus, correctly, as "the Dogma" is what is considered to be, by the Church, part of the infallible "Extraordinary Magisterium." Specifically, the Extraordinary teaching is the ex Cathedra stuff (section 4.9).

The part that I was referring to (and others are referring to) is the similar infallible teaching on the Papal infallibility considered, by the Church, as part of the infallible "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium." The Ordinary and Universal teaching is that the true Roman Pontiff will not fall into heresy or apostasy (defect from the Faith) because he is protected by the Holy Spirit. The true, legitimate head of the Church will not defect in matters of Faith and Morals. This is also Bellarmine's First Opinion. Pastor Aeternus confirms Bellarmine's First Opinion and the Ordinary and Universal teaching on the subject as the correct one regarding a true Pope not being able to fall into heresy, properly defined. That is the meaning of sections 4.6 and 4.7 and why they are a part of the docuмent. That was not a new teaching. It was a very old teaching, accepted by all Catholics. These two sections are used as infallible premises for the definition of the new Extraordinary teaching in 4.9.

Both the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary and Univeral Magisterium are considered to be equally infallible and irreformable, but they are manifested in different ways. 

This is not true. Like the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is indeed infallible, always. Can never be anything but infallible always. BUT, the UOM does *not* teach "that the true Roman Pontiff will not fall into heresy or apostasy (defect from the Faith) because he is protected by the Holy Spirit." I already showed this is false per V1 in my last posts.

But if that is what the OUM teaches, then aside from 1) the dogma defined at V1 absolutely disagrees with the UOM, 2) all trads are wrong and must abandon the true religion and embrace the new religion of V2 - because of what you say the UOM teaches - which it doesn't, but if it did.

You say, "all trads are wrong and must abandon the true religion and embrace the new religion of V2. 

No, it does not meant that at all. It means that if "heresies" were taught by "the Pope" himself, then that person was not a true Pope. That is the Sedevacantist position, related to indefectibility of the Church. 

Another solution to the problem is that the things that "the Pope taught" which are being called "heresies" are not what the Church has always referred to as "heresies" per se. So there is a mistake being made in expanding the definition of a heresy. The Pope can definitely err in certain matters. But he cannot fall into heresy properly understood.

Another solution is that there really were heresies, properly understood, being taught by officials in "the Church." And these heretical officials (Cardinals/Bishops) knew that in order for Catholics to follow these teachings they needed to make it APPEAR that the true Pope was the teacher of the heresies. So they got control of his "pen" and prevented the Pope from correcting the errors. This is the infiltration narrative. 

Then we have the definitely false R&R narrative, which you try to push on us. That not only can the true Pope err in certain matters of prudence and discipline, but he can become a complete, outright HERETIC and still be the legitimate head of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not supported by traditional Catholic teaching and makes a mockery of the Church, as others have tried, unsuccessfully, to point out to you. Yes, a Pope can make mistakes in certain matters and it is okay to resist him respectfully as St. Paul says when speaking of his correction of Cephas (Peter), but the true Pope is not able to teach a true heresy. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. On the other hand, all bets are off with an antipope because the person does not have the divine protection.

Yes, I say that because if the UOM teaches, as you said: "that the true Roman Pontiff will not fall into heresy or apostasy (defect from the Faith) because he is protected by the Holy Spirit" then we have no choice whatsoever in the matter - per the UOM we are bound to follow the pope because he is always protected by the Holy Spirit. Which means that trads are wrong and have been wrong and the NO is the true religion and has been since this so-called "crisis" started. 

Also, I know that's the sede position, but with all due respect, in light of V1 that position is ridiculous.

V1 clearly defines when the pope is infallible. This definition *must* agree with the UOM or one of them is wrong - which is altogether impossible. All V1 did was define that which the UOM has always taught.

Referencing V1, I do not know how it is possible for anyone to say what you said - "if "heresies" were taught by "the Pope" himself, then that person was not a true Pope" because that implication is not in there. 

Well, one thing is certain, the conciliar popes have most certainly taught/teach/promulgate heresies and errors. I mean, it is pretty basic, when something is taught that is contrary to the faith, to what the Church has always taught, it's heresy - no matter who preaches it.

All I have to do is repeat the dogma of papal infallibility - per the dogma the only time the pope cannot err is when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. For whatever reason, sedes feel it necessary or they are obligated to add on and on to the defined dogma.

Note that it is only after proclaiming that the Church has additional criteria and requirements above and beyond the infallible definition of V1, that they form their conclusion.

As I have said, I hope the sedes are right. I do not think they are, but for their sake, I certainly hope they are. FWIW, I have a  a number of departed sede faithful that I pray for their souls every day and have done so for decades. I really do hope they're right.

The Sede position is not ridiculous. It may be incorrect based on the historical facts. But doctrinally, the Sede position is in line with the traditional teaching about the Pope.

That a papal claimant (note I did not say Pope) truly teaches a "heresy," then that is proof, in and of itself, that the papal claimant is not a true Pope. The Sedes are absolutely correct on that. That he either was never validly-elected because of some secret defect or whatever.

The idea that a true Pope could be a "heretic" is asinine and blasphemous. It mocks Jesus's promise that Peter is the "rock on which the Church shall be built." Every successor of Peter is that "Rock," not just Simon bar Jona.

But there are many examples of "Peters," starting with Simon bar Jona himself, that reveal the potential for human weakness in these men. The worst Pope might have been John XII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm). From that CE article we read:

"John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself."

Note, however, of all the sins John XII was accused of, heresy was not one of them. That is because the Holy Spirit does not allow the true Pope to be a heretic, in the proper meaning of that word.

But trads of all types throw around the word "heretic" as if it is the same thing as "sacrilege" or "impiety." Heresy is a defection from the true Faith. Sacrilege or impiety is an horrible offense against God or sacred things. They are not the same thing as any manual of Moral Theology will tell you.

The other things that trads of all types do is rush to judgment about the actions of the Popes, as if they know all the details of exactly what happened in the distant past. This is arrogant.

We don't know if Paul VI understood exactly what the Freemason infiltrators in the Vatican were doing. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't.

And we don't need to rush to judgment on that. We can know that the false Novus Ordo sacraments are to be avoided simply because the Church has always taught that the "substance of the sacraments" cannot be changed, by the Pope or anyone else. They are counterfeits and must be avoided, no matter what an evil or confused or weak or ignorant Pope might say.

The Pope cannot overrule a previously laid down irreformable, infallible teaching of the Church. He doesn't have that power as Pastor Aeternus says here:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Wrong.  It was always a "pious belief" that the pope could not fall into heresy.

The fact that it's possible, is why +Bellarmine and all those eminent theologians debated the issue at all.  If it wasn't possible AT ALL, then there would be no debate.

The secondary question, "Could a heretic pope teach/promulgate heresy?" is the impossible part, for God wouldn't allow it. 

But the primary question, "Could a valid pope fall into personal heresy?"  1,000% yes.

FWIW, what I said was in reference to Pastor Aeternus IV.6 and IV.7, which I had earlier quoted. The purpose of Peter not failing in the Faith is not about him "falling into personal heresy." It has to do with his teaching to the faithful. So we seem to agree. Here is the quote from Pastor Aeternus again:


6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.