Author Topic: "reduced to a handful" (Read 4079 times)

Nonno · « **on:** July 08, 2011, 02:03:55 AM »

Quote from: St. Athanasius

"Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ."

Quote from: Caminus

And regarding this notion that the Church can be reduced to a small flock, no one disputes this. But this same flock will retain all the essential characteristics of the true Church of Jesus Christ, something which all the traditionalist Bishops, Priests and laymen combined simply do not yet possess.

I disagree with Caminus. The essentials DO remain.

Allow me to show why, by using an unlikely but realistic hypothetical scenario.

Let's say a handful is 10 people, and these 10 with the true Faith are the only ones left existing on earth. One is a bishop and one is a priest and these two clergymen live in Algeria. All other Catholics live in different countries, but not in Europe. That entails there is a vacant Roman See. Consider that Italy partly fell into the Mediterranean after some natural disaster, but the province of Rome still exists, and nobody lives there.

Right there, THIS would be the Church with ALL the essential characteristics of the true Church of Jesus Christ. Believe it or not, the Church in this scenario has the capability of having a pope. This is how...

The Roman province is "the See of Peter". That is doctrinal. If the bishop and priest in Algeria move to Rome to take up permanent residence, and the priest recognizes that bishop to be "the bishop of Rome", and the bishop accepts to be bishop of Rome, he would automatically become pope by that election by "acclamation", and would then have full and universal jurisdiction over all the remaining 8 Catholics in the other parts of the world.

This hypothetical scenario is true and in accord with Church teaching. Knowing this, it makes it all the more easy for anyone to shed the false SSPX fears about how one must go with the numbers, and the buildings, and the money - at the expense of truth & consistency. It allows all to more easily reject the false principle that - 'if something presents a "difficulty" or a "trial" it therefore cannot be true'. All the more easier to unbiasedly and conscientiously consider and accept what those Catholics have to say who have the truly consistent position - rejecting the false popes of Vatican II in order to protect the dogmas of the "Infallibility of the Church" and the "Holiness of the Church".

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2011, 01:31:12 PM »

I suppose that single bishop would possess ordinary jurisdiction, no? And what of the Roman Pontiff? If you know for certain that the totality of traditional Catholics form the Catholic Church properly speaking, then why is this not even recognized amongst themselves? Why is not the Catholic Church, reduced as She is to a handful of traditional Catholics, while all else are formally excluded, forebearing on bringing this crisis to an end and exposing to all its true existence? No, such silence and inaction betrays something else.

Also, I'm curious regarding a practico-historical question. Why would not the Church formally receive the errant who published and spread heresies back into the Church, if your understanding is correct? Where do canonical admonishments fit into your scheme of things? Would not the Church in Her dealing with truly heretical men within Her bosom engage a rite to receive those who have automatically expelled themselves from the Church? Take any example from history. Why did Rome deal with such heretics as if they were still members of the Church? I answer: because Rome understood membership in the Church in an external manner since She is an external society, as palpable to the senses as the Kingdom of France (Bellarmine), whereas you understand it in a purely invisible manner. Thus, the loss of theological faith in the internal forum expels one from the Church.

Ironically, the new ecclesiology relies upon this kind of subjectivism.

Nonno · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2011, 03:19:59 PM »

It is doctrinal that any Catholic man who is elected to be the Bishop of Rome is therefore pope. Before election, the bishop doesn't need any jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, in my scenario the bishop could elect that priest to be the pope, and he would have immediately obtained the papal jurisdiction, though the bishop would be compelled to consecrate him a bishop as soon as possible.

You are asking now about who is "Catholic"? Anyone who is validly baptized, professes the Catholic Faith, and has not been formally excluded from the Church. Being mistaken about some things does not necessarily exclude one from being a Catholic. You could have a very good-willed person, who actually has the divine virtue of Faith (which we cannot see), yet still has been fooled into believing in ecuмenism. The person may have retained the divine virtue of Faith despite this, but his profession is a heretical danger to others. Such a man could be elected, but because of the promise of Infallibility the Holy Ghost would PREVENT him from accidentally approving of anything harmful to the universal Church, even if it meant his untimely death. I believe this may have been the case with Pope John Paul I who was a pope for only 33 days.

There was no heresy during the "Western Schism" and it was extremely difficult to handle multiple papal claimants. So, we can normally expect things to be even more difficult today...humanly speaking, to get a true pope when heresy is so prevalent. I think it is natural that we make the Roman province a sort of "missionary" territory of traditionalists...but that is a subject for another thread.

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:27:03 PM »

You answer my question in the affirmative. Now, name one traditional Bishop that possesses ordinary jurisdiction (even granting the absurdity of your scenario for even when the Church was at its smallest during the time of the Apostles, the essential characteristics of the Church were present).

Nonno · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You answer my question in the affirmative. Now, name one traditional Bishop that possesses ordinary jurisdiction (even granting the absurdity of your scenario for even when the Church was at its smallest during the time of the Apostles, the essential characteristics of the Church were present).

I really don't know what you are talking about, Caminus, about some affirmative answer, because - No bishop, or priest, or even male layman needs to have ANY jurisdiction to be elected a pope while living in the Roman province. That is Catholic teaching.