So, I am surprised that so many veteran sedevacantists didn't react with a collective facepalm that could be heard around the world when +Roy started floating the idea. Nor do I believe the nonsense about how he just wants all the clergy to get together to "talk about" it ... as I think that's deflection.
I do believe he makes a point that given a vacancy of the Holy See the bishops of the world could IN THEORY convene to select a pope, and the privationist criticisms that voting in a Council requires jurisdiction, that's based on the error of Father Ricossa in a 1993 article where he cites Canon Law, but the law he cites is about an EcuмENICAL Council, nor does he demonstrate that it reflects immutable divine law rather that simply positive law that can be dispensed with in an urgent situation.
Nevertheless, since these bishops do in fact lack jurisdiction, the problem is that the only way such a Council could ever produce a pope would be is if it enjoyed the Universal Acceptance of all Catholics, where all Catholics submit to it willingly, since these bishops have no authority to impose it on anyone's consciences.
Now, here's the problem. In the CURRENT SITUATION of the Church, if something doesn't change dramatically ... in order to achieve anything even remotely resembling a Universal Acceptance, they Totalists would have to declare all of the following to be non-Catholic so that their non-acceptance would not "count" against the requisite "universal" acceptance.
1) sedeprivationists ... since they hold that a material succession with the pre-Vatican II Church would be required
2) all R&R (and D& R) ... numbering anywhere between 500,000 - 1,000,000 faithful by various estimates
3) all Eastern Rite Catholics (approximately 18 million worldwide)
4) any and all Conciliar Catholics who may be in material error only, or err in good faith or ignorance (undoubtedly MANY millions, since if even 1% of the 1.3 billion who self-identify as Catholic actually are, that means about 13 million)
So, then the "Royist Conclavists" represent an incredibly tiny fraction of Catholics worldwide, with probably 4-5 0s after the decimal point before you get a non-zero number. To believe that they can acquire anything even remotely resemble a "universal acceptance" is so utterly absurd that it really should be a major embarrassment to them that so many of them appear to be taking it somewhat seriously.
Now, they have to be such rabidly dogmatic SVs that they would in fact have to exclude 1-5 above, declaring anyone who isn't a Totalist SV to be non-Catholic, BUT ... they would even have to exclude the significant percentage of Totalists who would find their exclusion of 1-5 absurd (more moderate SVs) and would not be on board with or want to have anything to do with their Council.
Already in public on X, the Totalists in favor of the Council are deriding the sedeprivationists, and that one fool whom they consecrated in Latin America, Bishop Rodrigo da Silva has come out moronically declaring sedeprivationism to be heretical, and anti-Conclavist Totalism as schismatic. And the reason he gave were so idiotic and represent so gross a lack of comprehension regarding what the privationists hold, that his consecration alone should be an embarrassment to all the Totalists.
Yet another thing +Roy is subtly trying is to assert jurisdiction, and I'm surprised that some of the Totalists are going along with that, as this was already tried once before with laughable and tragic results, with +Musey and +Vezelis dividing up the US between themselves, with each assuming jurisdiction over one half.
Now, +Roy does make some points, contradicting the equally ridiculous position of the privationists that bishops might as well be laymen where it comes to jurisdiction (the functional equivalent). I believe that there's a habitual potency that's intrinsic to the Episcopal Holy Order, with "habitual potency" being the equivalent of a "power" (potestas). Now, the very etymology of bishop, "episkopos" (Greek) -> "episcopus" (Latin) means "overseer", and it wasn't later in Church history that the notion of a "chor" bishop in the East (country bishop) or auxiliary (helper) in the West developed, where you first had "Sacramental" bishops that were subordinate to other bishops and didn't have any "jurisdiction". Before then, if a man was consecrated, it was only to exercise authority. There was no explicit distinction between the power of Orders and the jurisdiction that typically went with it.
Now, the problem is that the authority or jurisdiction is a habitual POTENCY only, and in order to be actualized, since authority in the concrete or the actual, required two, a superior and a subject. Without a subject, the authority is purely potential. Now, ordinarily the way this becomes actualized, i.e. where you get subjects, is that the Holy Father, who along (per Vatican I) has immediate and direct jurisdiction over all the faithful, will command that "Catholics in this geographical area (or other group) will be subject to this bishop" and "Catholics over there to that bishop". Only the Holy Father has the authority to command all Catholics like that. Bishops without the authority to command cannot command the Catholics not under their authority to come under their authority. Bishop Roy can't waltz into Quebec and, say, declare himself Bishop of that Province, with jurisdiction. He can't even do that at some chapel he sets up there.
Now, where an argument can be made would be that priests, and faithful, could willingly submit to his authority, put themselves under his authority, and that he would thereby have jurisdiction over them, in the absence of any other authority they're required to obey. St. Thomas, in that surprising passage about confessing sins to a layman, says that the one confessing would be willingly submitting himself to the other's authority, in a sense. Of course, this authority would be qualitatively different, since there would be nothing to prevent anyone who had submitted to the authority of a particular bishop from withdrawing that obedience, and then going off to obey another bishop.
So, this is how a universal acceptance might give the Imperfect Council a certain kind of authority to elect a Pope ... so, that this is possible IN THEORY (siding with Bishop Roy), but it's utterly absurd in practice, given the current "status quo" in the Church. I mean, within days of the proposal the Totalists and privationists are already at one another's throats, and one Traddie priest is excommunicating some other Traddie priest pretty much on a weekly basis ... and to think there could be enough "unity" in this current (pardon my French, Bishop Roy), shitstorm of a Traditional movement ... is so ridiculous that I have no words for this, and there simply aren't enough facepalms to express my dismay.
We're coming full circle now ... From Palmar de Troya to Papa de Roya
What is being proposed is a
de novo consideration - 70 years out from ground zero AND in the fullest assembly of the Church that God will make possible - of ALL issues concerning the Church since ground zero - "supplied jurisdiction" most especially inclusive. It's called "calling together the house in order to clean house."
IF - a massive word - but IF this thing goes forward, Bp. Roy will fade into the background the way a fart dissipates in a breeze. The assembly will increase; individuals will decrease.
Become docile again. You are no teacher. Lend yourself to learning all that is ACTUALLY being proposed, and then lend yourself to a mature consideration. Thus far you are all REACTION. As long as you stay in that mode, you are not useful to Holy Mother the Church. You could be very useful, but it will require a conversion. And not only you should convert, but we all need to convert. Because the mess we're in - and I've heard you bellyache about it
ad nauseum - is, each and every one of us, our fault.
Poll
Topic: Bishop Roy's Imperfect Council (Read 670 times)