Author Topic: AGAIN Defending the False Assertion That SV Leads to the Disappearance of (Read 7647 times)

Exilenomore · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:01:04 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I propose no such thing.

Which episcopal seats do you claim the sedevacantist bishops to possess?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I merely propose the only Catholic Bishops remaining have the tacit ascent of the Holy See. I base this upon factual history in which bishops were validly consecrated and had formal Apostolic Succession without the expressed consent of a Pope.

During the earlier times of the Church, the corpus of Canon Law had a different shape than it has today. For example, the Pope often provided jurisdiction explicitly through the Sacred Canons to cathedral chapters to elect their Bishops, and these elections then had to be approved by the Roman Pontiff. That is essentially different from creating a kind of 'tacit approval', based on a new and heretical notion on Apostolic Succession (the pretension that Apostolic Succession can exist without the possession of an episcopal see), while invoking an imaginary vacancy of the Apostolic See. The concept of "independent bishops" is a novelty, and such bishops can never be Apostolic Successors, because all jurisdiction flows from the Roman Pontiff as its origin.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have created nothing. They come from the line of Thuc, Lefebvre and two others and it did not matter if these valid successors were SV in 1959, 60, 61 so long as they were Catholic. Do you propose the Lefebvre was not Catholic?

Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc both recognised the Pope as Pope in 1960. Where were your sedevacantist bishops during that year? It is a simple question, and the answer is equally simple: They did not exist. Remember, when all the bishops (and vagus bishops consecrated outside of the papal jurisdiction are no formal bishops) recognise a man as the Pope of Rome, then his validity is a proven fact. A dogmatic fact.

Francis is the Pope of Rome, and it is objectively a schismatical act to separate from his jurisdiction.

Arvinger · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:03:09 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a false diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

You pit Cekeda against de Lauriers while John Lane disagrees with them both. SV diagnoses the problem. SV does not have to explain where the hierarchy anymore than R & R does.

If the diagnosis is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church then it must be rejected as false. If you cannot demonstrate where is Church hierarchy and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then effectively you admit that the Apostolic Succesion has ceased, which is heretical. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your diagnosis is compatible with Catholicism.

Who do true Catholics submit to? I maintain that is where the hierarchy is. What bishop do you submit to?

In the history of the Church have bishops been consecrated who subsequently gained with ordinary jurisdiction without the expressed approval of a Pope or during a time of interregnum?

Certainly, but there were always bishops with ordinary jurisdiction out there, it is necessary for maintaining the Apostolic Succession. If you cannot name a single bishop who currently has ordinary jurisdiction it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy and effectively admit that the Apostolic Succesion has ceased.

The Cassiciacuм Thesis and to some extent Siri theory provide potential solution to this problem, but certainly not Fr Cekada's claim that the only remnant of Church hierarchy is bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church.

You started this thread to "defend SV against the assertion that it leads to disappearence of the Church" - if you want to do that, you must identify Church hierarchy including bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:28:56 PM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I propose no such thing.

Which episcopal seats do you claim the sedevacantist bishops to possess?

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I merely propose the only Catholic Bishops remaining have the tacit ascent of the Holy See. I base this upon factual history in which bishops were validly consecrated and had formal Apostolic Succession without the expressed consent of a Pope.

During the earlier times of the Church, the corpus of Canon Law had a different shape than it has today. For example, the Pope often provided jurisdiction explicitly through the Sacred Canons to cathedral chapters to elect their Bishops, and these elections then had to be approved by the Roman Pontiff. That is essentially different from creating a kind of 'tacit approval', based on a new and heretical notion on Apostolic Succession (the pretension that Apostolic Succession can exist without the possession of an episcopal see), while invoking an imaginary vacancy of the Apostolic See. The concept of "independent bishops" is a novelty, and such bishops can never be Apostolic Successors, because all jurisdiction flows from the Roman Pontiff as its origin.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have created nothing. They come from the line of Thuc, Lefebvre and two others and it did not matter if these valid successors were SV in 1959, 60, 61 so long as they were Catholic. Do you propose the Lefebvre was not Catholic?

Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc both recognised the Pope as Pope in 1960. Where were your sedevacantist bishops during that year? It is a simple question, and the answer is equally simple: They did not exist. Remember, when all the bishops (and vagus bishops consecrated outside of the papal jurisdiction are no formal bishops) recognise a man as the Pope of Rome, then his validity is a proven fact. A dogmatic fact.

Francis is the Pope of Rome, and it is objectively a schismatical act to separate from his jurisdiction.

Did you miss my point that they did not have to be SV bishops in order to be valid and have ordinary jurisdiction?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:33:45 PM »

Theologians generally agree that the cessation of all ordinary jurisdiction would compromise the indefectibility of the Church. What you're describing is not ordinary but extraordinary jurisdiction (this "tacit consent" nonsense).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** July 06, 2016, 12:44:38 PM »

The "tacit consent" is not nonsense. Where does the Church teach it is intrinsically true (Divine Law) that expressed consent must always be given? Keep looking until you find it as that would mean you will not pollute this forum until you do, which means you will not come back at all as you will never find something properly understood which would make such a claim. Don't be blind to the historical facts.