Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

During this crisis could there be justification for future consecrations without a papal mandate?

That is the $10,000,000 question.

The Church never has or will be a democracy. The other Apostles are Apostolic, because of the canonical mission received from Peter. The Church's holy teachings are not "up for grabs" or open to a public "show of hands". Their true sense in good times and bad are clear for all men of good-will.

"Never was it lawful to discuss again any matter which had once been decided by the Apostolic See." -Pope St. Boniface, 419 A.D.

In the heat of the battle a ways back, a contact who knew the (now deceased) Bp. Moises Carmona in Mexico, said from their close associate who worked directly with Bp. Pivarunas of CMRI., in NE, that Cekada, justly under siege, called up Bp. Pivarunas and said, quote: "Tell Ramolla to call off the dogs!" That moment, is when the battle changed.  Bp. Pivarunas had originally been publicly supportive of the attempt to boot Dolan out of, not just West Chester, but the whole SV scene.

My contact then added a logical critique, saying "Cekada must have had something very bad on Bp. Pivarunas", which makes total sense. Why else would Bp. Pivarunas, who is known to usually avoid controversy at any cost, abruptly and publicly change his condemnation of SGG, right after Cekada's "friendly" phone call?

Possible scenario.

1. Bp. Pivarunas knows what is going on at SGG (which is a fact, as published by Dr. Droleskey).



2. Cekada sensing his "cover up' is almost up, calls to blackmail Pivarunas (and is effective).



3. Bp. Pivarunas who had offered disenfranchised SSG people help, turns against his conscience and the whole effort to protect the good people in Ohio.
 

Now we see Daily Catholic posting Daniel Dolan's sermons again and Cekada worming his way back into "respectability" in traddie land, while the core issues/dangers fully remain.

(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).

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!

Quote from: Guest

 Those videos they made passing on the stereotype that every German person was like the mass-murderer Hitler, who killed many Catholics, were atrocious. Who paid for all that professional propaganda?

Maybe that is the big question. Who is really behind that destructive group in West Chester, that has done so much harm, to so many, and is answerable to no one.

[/b]

Some have had success by filing a court a order against Google to force them to turn over select YouTube user data, such as the specific posters of offensive content.[/i]

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!

As one with no private interest in this fray, I have a question apropos SGG, Fr. Cekada, Thomas Droleskey, et al. I thought that Droleskey was a regular at SGG and was a partisan of +Dolan and Cekada. Has he now broken with them over this business concerning Fr. Ramolla? Or have I got this wrong from the start: that is, was Droleskey never a fan of the SGG crowd?

When it comes to SVism, a concordance revised daily is not something to be scoffed at. That is to say, the complications of a daytime soap opera clearly have nothing on SVism.