I'm getting bad at keeping track of time, but Droleskey and SGG were indeed close for a couple of years.

Everything blew up during the Ramolla incident. Most of what went on then remains occult in spite of the many promises by a member of this forum that everything would become clear and proven. Instead, the poster has slid into the background, and SGG is a little bit slowed down, but mostly business-as-usual.

Quote from: Guest

Have you heard of the “complications” of the ongoing war between SSPX and the Resisters? There are plenty of problems in the trad-but-recognize-pope camp!

Well, I see that someone's ox has been gored! Thanks for the nonanswer, fellow guest.

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

(DZ 1831)

First, jurisdiction comes from The Supreme Pontiff alone. Thus this concerns Divine decree, the essence of the Faith, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church as established by Christ.

These novel "tacit/implicit" words of yours, are mere inventions to subvert the divinely decreed hierarchical order/discipline of the Church. Its Petrine Authority ... exactly what Pius XII solemnly condemned and warned against in 1958, in his providential Ad Apostolorum Principis.

Magisterial Teaching from Encyclical of Pius XII (June 29, 1958): "We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined."  (Extract from Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958 *Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)


(DZ 1831)

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

A Clarification: These novel "tacit/implicit" words of yours ...  

meant your sophistic copycat M.O. of the N.O., in vainly attempting to avoid condemnation for your violating the Church's defined teaching requiring a Papal Mandate prior to any consecration.


"Pope Pius XII specifically reproved the Chinese bishops for pretending it could still have any application under the principle of “ancient usage,” a principle appealed to by those advocating for liturgical renewal in the Novus Ordo."

"The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope."[/i]  (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, 1945)


Pivarunas (nor Griff Ruby, etc.) cannot cite any council or even any law in his favor, no parallel passages of the Code, no decisions from the Sacred Congregations, no common opinion of the doctors, but only a one-time deviation from the norm. This “usage” was obliquely referred to by Pope Pius XII in “Ad Apostolorum Principis,” but it was neither called a custom nor a law. And Pope Pius XII specifically reproved the Chinese bishops for pretending it could still have any application under the principle of “ancient usage,” a principle appealed to by those advocating for liturgical renewal in the Novus Ordo.  Indeed the laws on papal mandate as explained by this pope are crystal clear. And if any object that the laws on papal mandate do not anticipate the present situation, then Pope Pius XII is equally clear when he specifically addresses what may and may not be done during an interregnum. The following excerpt from his constitution on papal elections below goes to the very heart of the matter under discussion here. It alone is the law for our times, although it has been a carefully kept secret and was not even translated into English in its entirety until recently.

Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals

While the Apostolic See is Vacant
1.1.                  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.2
2.2.                  Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.3
3.3.                  The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff.4 In truth, if anything adverse to this COMMAND should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void. (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, 1945)

This echoes the following from Pope Pius VI’s “Charitas”:

“24. We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments UNDER ANY PRETEXT OF NECESSITY WHATSOEVER. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force…”

Papal decrees cannot be refuted

Pope Pius XII’s constitution and “Charitas” both are infallible and both clearly reflect the mind of the lawgiver in such circuмstances. They speak directly to the situation at hand. The fact that they are infallible should suffice, but even if neither were infallible it would be enough to settle the question. According to Canon Law, signed papal docuмents are the only evidence considered irrefutable in ecclesiastical court. Canon 1813 §1 lists as principal ecclesiastical docuмents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries and also in 1813 §4 records of Baptism, Confirmation, etc… that can be proven authentic. Can. 1813 §3 lists private letters, writings, wills, etc… as another source of proof. Public ecclesiastical docuмents are presumed genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments, (Can. 1814). And because they discount and distort papal docuмents, we will never see any viable evidence from Traditionalists. Public docuмents prove the facts that are directly and principally asserted. No further proof is required, and the judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by a public docuмent, sustained as such by the court. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Monsignor Cicognani,” Canon Law,” p. 626, ft. note). Docuмents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819).

CLAUSIT!

I have never seen this laid out so clearly before. Pivarunas' C.M.R.I. contradicts its own words - and the Church's.

He and his followers are just like those reprobate Chinese in the 50's who the Church, in Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, unmistakeably condemned.

Pivarunas own website CMRI.org damns himself ... speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he provides the Infallible Church's teaching that states, Encyclical Letters (like Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, which condems all non-papal mandated consecrations) demand religious assent, and then goes out and attempts to consecrate 100% void of the infallibly defined teaching requiring a papal mandate??


                                                                "A Primer on Infallibility", from his (CMRI's) Official Website:

"To recap, we insist that the Chair of Peter is vacant today because the New Mass, the new liturgy, the new teachings, and the new Code of Canon Law are harmful to the Faith. Moreover, the New Mass is per se invalid as well. Hence, the true Church of Christ, protected as it is by infallibility, cannot be identified with the Church that has done these evil things, though this new Church continues to call itself “Roman Catholic.”

The true Church of Christ is to be found among those clergy and laity who adhere to the traditional Mass, liturgy, law, and teachings of the Catholic Church as they existed before the Modernist changes of Vatican Council II. ...

12. Can Catholics, in good conscience, withhold religious assent to the Pope’s ordinary universal teachings?

No, they cannot. Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950):6 “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the *theologians.”

6 Denzinger 2313


*Or even by the Schuckardt "trained" non-Theologian/10,000th Thuc "bishop", Mark Pivarunas.

 

Feelings ... Emotionalism ... Sap

If Pope Pius XII had not defined the dogma that bishops receive their jurisdiction only through the Roman Pontiff and not directly from Christ Himself, as many insistently contended in the late 1800s following the definition of infallibility, the Old Catholics who infiltrated the *Traditionalists would have reigned supreme and uncontested. Pius XII is the bane of their existence and we can only thank God he foresaw this situation and did all he could to secure the Barque of Peter before the inevitable flood of apostasy washed over Her decks.

*They can pretend all they like that the Catholic Church can exist as a juridical entity without a pope but not only do they refuse to accept Catholic dogma, they deny the main premise upon which Christ founded his Church — the papacy — an historic fact docuмented by the Church. They live in a fantasy world and nothing, it seems, can free them from their irrational thinking.

“Eamonite”

(an individual who is sick with the same obsession as the notorious anti-hero Eamon Shea)

Quote from: Guest

Well, if you have the time.  

Yes its worthwhile to find the time to do so.  :furtive: I enjoy reading the "Bishop's Corner" column. So well written compared to the cuмbersome and boring newsletters of Bishop Fellay. And I still attend SSPX Masses whenever I can