Author Topic: "reduced to a handful" (Read 3048 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.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:56:40 PM »

You apparently don't understand the import of my objection. Ordinary jurisdiction, the possession of divine authority is an essential quality of the Church. In order for your theory to hold, you must demonstrate the at least one traditional bishop possesses ordinary jurisidiction, otherwise you will have to revise your opinion.

Nonno · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2011, 06:12:29 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You apparently don't understand the import of my objection. Ordinary jurisdiction, the possession of divine authority is an essential quality of the Church. In order for your theory to hold, you must demonstrate the at least one traditional bishop possesses ordinary jurisidiction, otherwise you will have to revise your opinion.

I already explicitly answered that. The person elected to the position of "Bishop of Rome" needs no jurisdiction to be qualified for that election. He needs only be a Catholic man. This is Catholic teaching.

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2011, 06:18:19 PM »

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: Caminus
You apparently don't understand the import of my objection. Ordinary jurisdiction, the possession of divine authority is an essential quality of the Church. In order for your theory to hold, you must demonstrate the at least one traditional bishop possesses ordinary jurisidiction, otherwise you will have to revise your opinion.

I already explicitly answered that. The person elected to the position of "Bishop of Rome" needs no jurisdiction to be qualified for that election. He needs only be a Catholic man. This is Catholic teaching.

No Sir, All Popes, even the few who were laymen(I acutally only know of one off the top of my head) were given Holy Orders by the Cardinals, so if there was no Bishop to consecrate someone else a Bishop or to become Pope himself then there would be no such Bishop of Rome in your hypothesis, thus the Apostolic link would crumble and the church would be fallen.

LordPhan · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2011, 06:19:10 PM »

I do like the quote from St. Athanasius, I use it myself, I would however remind you that St. Athanasius was a Patriarch, and the only authority above him was in fact the Pope.

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2011, 06:42:34 PM »

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: Caminus
You apparently don't understand the import of my objection. Ordinary jurisdiction, the possession of divine authority is an essential quality of the Church. In order for your theory to hold, you must demonstrate the at least one traditional bishop possesses ordinary jurisidiction, otherwise you will have to revise your opinion.

I already explicitly answered that. The person elected to the position of "Bishop of Rome" needs no jurisdiction to be qualified for that election. He needs only be a Catholic man. This is Catholic teaching.

Do you even understand the concept of ordinary jurisdiction? If not, I suppose we should go over some basics before entertaining wild scenarios.

Nonno · « **Reply #10 on:** July 10, 2011, 02:22:53 AM »

All jurisdiction and apostolic succession is rooted in the Bishop of Rome. It has the potency from that See geographically. The bishop in my scenario needs no jurisdiction in order to be elected Pope. Once elected, his universal jurisdiction becomes active precisely because of his position as the Bishop of the particular See. He could then consecrate other bishops, and assign them to territories where they would have their own ordinary jurisdiction in the territory given them.

If you still have a problem with my original scenario, then be specific about what you think is wrong with it.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2011, 04:42:12 PM »

Quote

The bishop in my scenario needs no jurisdiction in order to be elected Pope.

That's not the point, rather it is that bishops must possess ordinary jurisdiction to rule, teach and sanctify within Christ's Church. It is this divine authority which is the formal element in Apostolic Succession. A Bishop without ordinary jurisdiction is not properly a Successor. A Church without jurisdiction, as residing in the bishops, flowing immediately from the Bishop of Rome, is a Church that lacks an essential characteristic of Christ's Church. Such a Church ceases to be the Church of Christ. It doesn't revivify, it must be handed on in succession. That is why the totality of traditional Bishops do not constitute the Church. And that is why theoretical sedevacantism harbors a deadly error. Therefore you have made an error in judgment and must revise your opinion.

Nonno · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2011, 05:08:46 PM »

Totally wrong Caminus. The Catholic books say that a layman can be elected a pope. Do I have to repeat that? A layman can be elected, and a layman has no jurisdiction. The books say as soon as he accepts the election, he automatically obtains UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction of a pope. That principle is at the heart of my whole scenario. UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction is the source of all jurisdiction given to other bishops. He only has to point and nod to another bishop to give him ordinary jurisdiction of another defined territory, such as Iceland, etc.

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2011, 08:45:41 PM »

I'm not talking about who can be elected Pope. Read what I wrote again. The Church cannot be without ordinary jurisdiction. If the entire hierarchy has defected, there is no ordinary jurisidiction remaining. Traditional Bishops do not by their own admission possess ordinary jurisdiction. But if no one possesses ordinary jurisdiction, the Church has essentially vanished. This authority cannot "revive" like grace or merit. It must always exist within the Church in a continuous succession otherwise it ceases to be.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2011, 08:50:13 PM »

Quote from: Nonno

Totally wrong Caminus. The Catholic books say that a layman can be elected a pope. Do I have to repeat that? A layman can be elected, and a layman has no jurisdiction. The books say as soon as he accepts the election, he automatically obtains UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction of a pope. That principle is at the heart of my whole scenario. UNIVERSAL and full jurisdiction is the source of all jurisdiction given to other bishops. He only has to point and nod to another bishop to give him ordinary jurisdiction of another defined territory, such as Iceland, etc.

Not to go off-topic, but no one can't. You can't be elected Pope if you aren't even ordained a priest. If you think anyone can be elected Pope, it only shows you're an extremist (probably Father C, who is an extremist) and should be kicked off this site. The definition of an extremist is mis-used by modernists. If they think people who support the Traditional Latin Mass are extremists, they haven't seen anything until they see people like CM and "Pope" Augustine II. Unfortunetly, you seem to fit that category as well.