CathInfo.com

From this, venerable brother, you have what Christ the Lord Himself established concerning the hierarchical government and order of the Church. The distinction and distribution of power among bishops, who by divine law share a common dignity, was introduced by ecclesiastical law so that all would not claim everything for themselves, but that in individual provinces there would be individual bishops whose judgment would have first place among their brethren, and again that certain bishops established in greater cities would assume a broader solicitude, through whom the care of the universal Church would flow together to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere would disagree with its head. From him, as from a certain head, the Lord wished His gifts to flow into the whole body; and in truth, from him or from his successors the greater sees have whatever honor and power they rightly possess. Since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, furnishes to those who ask the truth of faith, and since his dignity does not fail in his successors, you see, venerable brother, that it belongs to their duty and right to decide those matters in the foregoing which, according to different times and circuмstances of places, the good and advantage of the Church and the true salvation of souls – the supreme law – suggest in the Lord. When these teachings of the Catholic faith are arrogantly disregarded, a broad path is opened to schisms and even heresies, as the history of all times witnesses and as the present outcome itself shows, when moderation in justice and reverence for faith have not been kept by some.
You know, venerable brother, the sorrowful schism recently excited in Constantinople by certain Armenians. Although they presume to call themselves Catholics in order to deceive the unwary and inexperienced, they have most miserably fallen away from Catholic truth and unity and have been condemned by Our judgment and authority. In the manner received among heretics, they attempt everything and dare everything to draw disciples after themselves and to seek support everywhere for their utterly ruined cause. With this purpose they have also laid snares for the faithful of the Chaldean rite and do not cease to do so.
…
To obtain that permission [to consecrate bishops] he tried to put forward both the necessities of that people, for whom he asserted insufficient provision had been made, and his own anxiety of conscience unless he came to their aid. After all these things had been carefully weighed by the aforementioned Congregation in charge of the affairs of the Oriental Rites, and after receiving its report, We ordered that the patriarch be answered that, as far as We clearly knew, his requests would not in the least serve the benefit of souls; that We had made sufficient provision for the spiritual welfare of the Malabars; and that therefore he should acquiesce and lay aside all anxiety of mind on this account.
…
The long-awaited reply of the patriarch proved sufficiently that he did not wish to yield to Our warnings. Its whole purpose was to assert the integrity of his faith and to profess his devotion and submission toward the apostolic chair of blessed Peter, while nevertheless defending his alleged patriarchal rights and begging Us to allow him to enjoy them undisturbed by revoking what had been decreed by the Apostolic See concerning Malabar and the election of bishops. Finally, recalling the whiteness of his old age and the labors he had endured, he tried to move Us to compassion for himself and his nation. Meanwhile, however, he neither withdrew from his opinion nor from his rash attempts….
…
Yet, considering that you had formerly professed the Catholic faith and the reverence owed to this Apostolic See, that you still profess it in your letters, and that you once also proved it by deeds, We preferred to think that you had been deceived by the very crafty quibbles of the neo-heretics, by which they contend that such reverence can be reconciled with disobedience, rather than that you had in fact fallen away from your Catholic sentiments.
…
To admit that the [papal] primacy of jurisdiction was established by divine law, and then to set against it the patriarchal rights, as you call them, instituted by ecclesiastical ordering, as if the Roman Pontiff could not derogate from them according to the conditions of times, places, and causes, is certainly not Catholic. And wholly unworthy of a Catholic bishop is any reservation of his rights or privileges by which he intends to withdraw those very things from the supreme, full, and legitimate ordering and power of blessed Peter and his successors.
…
We cannot conceal that great sadness is brought upon Us and grave scandal upon the faithful when, in order to excuse your disobedience to Our apostolic constitution beginning cuм ecclesiastica, you try to weaken its force and efficacy by asserting that it had not been accepted by you; and that, without damage to faith, this could be done because that constitution should be counted not among dogmatic matters but merely among disciplinary ones. But how can it be admitted, while preserving the divine constitution of the Church, that the force and efficacy of apostolic constitutions depend upon the acceptance of bishops or of anyone else whatsoever, or that those which concern discipline and not faith can be rejected with impunity?
…
What profit is there in professing the Catholic dogma concerning the primacy of blessed Peter and his successors, and in so often issuing declarations of Catholic faith and obedience toward the Apostolic See, when in reality his works openly contradict his words? Is not contumacy made all the more inexcusable the more the duty of obedience is acknowledged? Does the authority of the Apostolic See not extend to decreeing those things which have been commanded by Us? Or is it enough to have communion of faith with that See without the subjection of obedience – things which cannot be said while preserving the Catholic faith?
…
The matter at stake, venerable brothers and beloved sons, is whether obedience is to be rendered or denied to the Apostolic See; whether its supreme power is to be acknowledged even in your Churches, not only as to faith but also as to discipline. Whoever denies this is a heretic; whoever acknowledges it and nevertheless stubbornly refuses to obey it is worthy of anathema.
…
Since We are not unaware that ecclesiastical censures and penalties have been rashly inflicted by the patriarch even upon priests, clerics, and perhaps also other faithful, because they refused to assent to his perverse plans, We declare that a special faculty has already been granted by Us to Venerable Brother Louis, Archbishop of Damietta, Our delegate in Mesopotamia, to examine the force and justice of those same censures and penalties – which no one may despise insofar as they were imposed by a legitimate prelate – and to relieve from them those whom he judges in the Lord to have been unjustly condemned.

• Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of LEFEBVRIST Errors (1873)
• Pope Pius IX’s Encyclical Quartus Supra: The ‘Missing’ Passages

On 22 January 1877, the Apostolic Delegate Lion delivered the encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu of 1 September 1876, both in the original Latin and in the Arabic translation, to the Chaldean Patriarch Audo. … The impending excommunication of the Chaldean Patriarch Audo shocked the entire Catholic world and held the faithful in high suspense. … After reading the encyclical, the Patriarch declared his willingness to submit to the Pope and the Propaganda Fide [Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith].
(Paul Pallath and Josy Scariah Vattothu, Rapporti tra Papa Pio IX e il patriarca caldeo Giuseppe Audo: Autonomia del patriarcato, giurisdizione sulla Chiesa malabarese in India e infallibilità del Papa. Volume III: dal 1875 al 1878 [Roma: Aracne, 2026], p. 19)