Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on July 06, 2016, 07:13:31 AM
-
More dishonest tactics by R and R's (unless they simply do not know proper grammar.) I consider John Lane and John Daly to be at the very top among those who articulate the reasonableness of SV based upon their obvious thorough study of ecclesiology. Despite this, I disagree with John Lane and John Daly in regards to where the hierarchy is as I believe the hierarchy are the only remaining known Catholic Bishops which are the traditional Bishops, while he maintains, as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the traditional Bishops are the one place where the hierarchy cannot be, because according to him, they do not have formal jurisdiction, which means they do not have the tacit approval of the Holy See. I see the denial of this possibility being akin to claiming that were a valid Pope to come into existence he would declare that they did not have the duty to officially continue the Church as they have because they did not continue the Catholic Church in a way that is valid (as if the Church is to cease maintaining formal and habitual apostolic succession for as long as there is no Pope. If that were the case, it seems to me, the Church would actually disappear (as eventually there would be no bishops left with ordinary jurisdiction) during an incredibly long interregnum which is impossible). He is left trying to maintain the validly of one or two NO Bishops or those whose existence no one is aware of. I also have reservations on his "una cuм" position but he obviously runs rings around me, and most if not all who post here theologically. Much of what he states below is undeniably true, and is as usual for John, incredibly well-stated as he makes short work of those who attack him personally and lump him together with others he disagrees with in order to undermine him, and as a result, (they hope) his position in the eyes of their readers. This tactic is also frequently used by Feeneyites, it is a tactic of losers. By "losers" I mean by those who hold a false position and have to resort to lies and personal attacks in order to defend their position:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1815
Catholic Family News some months ago published an article in which the following passage occurs:
<< Stage 5 - Public Fact/Ecclesiavacantism: The final phase is the logical conclusion to the previous. In this phase, the person has lost faith in the entire visible Church. Once a person arrives at this state, he considers the Church itself as an entirely false Church, and viciously attacks the Church with the goal of discrediting it. In this phase, which usually goes hand-in-hand with the previous phase, the errors of churchmen are not exposed for the purpose of defending the Faith, but for the purpose of mocking and discrediting the Church itself. Those in this phase will declare that one may have nothing to do with the visible Church, since they believe it is a false Church. They also usually (but not always) declare that it is forbidden even to assist at an "una cuм" Mass - that is, a Mass in which the Pope's name is mentioned. Clearly, the top Sedevacantist apologists fall into this category (Fr. Cekada, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, Mario Derksen, John Lane, Gerry Matatics, the Dimond brothers).>>
In this paragraph there are two controversial assertions:
1. That John Daly and I fall into "Stage 5 sedevacantism"
2. That John Daly and I "usually (but not always)" forbid assistance at "una cuм" masses.
As a result of this second assertion, some people thought that I must have changed position on the "una cuм" and consequently I wrote to the publisher and demanded a correction. I have been unable to secure that retraction.
Therefore, for the record, I assert that it is entirely lawful to assist at so-called "una cuм" masses. I also assert that the Church is the Church, and has not defected, and further, that the sedevacantist position exists precisely in order to avoid believing that the Church has defected, which is a heretical notion. How much of the hierarchy remains intact is a problematical question, precisely because so many of the putative bishops are open heretics, but in order to say that they were all heretics and not Catholics, one would need either to form a judgement about every single one of them, an impossible task, or apply some universally applicable principle by which it would be clear that none of them can be Catholic bishops. I am not aware of any such principle, except the notion that a false pope cannot validly appoint anybody to an office. This principle does not apply, and I have energetically refuted its application to our circuмstances countless times, as my regular readers would know. I will comment further on this below.
In the Catholic Family News text, the adverb "usually" modifies the verb "declare" and that is why the natural reading of it (the unconscious but certain effect on the reader) is to bring him to think that all the named men forbid assistance at "una cuм" masses, with the odd-sounding qualification that they "usually but not always" declare this.
In order to defend the text at all, it is necessary to make the adverb "usually" modify the nouns "John Daly" and/or "John Lane." Obviously this is not a valid procedure.
If the author meant to say that some but not all of the men listed belong to the category defined, he failed. His grammar, in that case, is incorrect, and the unfortunate effect is to mislead the reader.
Finally, on this, even if the author meant to say that some, but not all, of the men listed belong to the category he has defined, but employed bad grammar, then his text remains intrinsically unjust, for it creates a situation in which men who are diametrically opposed on something are mixed together in a way that it is impossible for the reader to disentangle. If the reader thinks that Fr. Cekada possibly approves of assistance at “una cuм” masses, then that is an injustice to Fr. Cekada, who finds the very thought horrifying. If the reader thinks that I possibly agree with Fr. Cekada on this, then that is an injustice to me, and the same is true if you swap my name for that of John Daly.
The second erroneous assertion is in one sense more grievous, but I didn't demand a retraction, because I have no evidence that anybody has been misled by it, and because I have been accused of heresy so many times by non-sedes (and sedes, actually) that it washes over without effect.
I have argued for so long, and so emphatically, that the entire hierarchy has NOT defected that it would be a very simple matter to verify. For example, this discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&start=0
<< It's a matter of Christian doctrine, actually. The importance of it today is precisely that trads - especially sedes - display a dangerous tendency (i.e. truly dangerous, doctrinally) to regard their bishops as Successors of the Apostles, and you have Fr. Cekada for example saying publicly that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church consists of Bishop Dolan and the other (un-named) traditional bishops. This is gravely erroneous, but it's just a clear statement of what many trads, however vaguely, actually think. The Catholic Church has a hierarchy. Any theory of the crisis has to be able to say where it is. >>
Or here: viewtopic.php?p=12277#p12277
<< As for the disappearance of the hierarchy, that's impossible, so if your theory implies that or even perceives it to be possible, it needs radical reformation in order to bring it into harmony with sacred doctrine. >>
Anyway, this is all a matter of public record, easily verifiable, and if Catholic Family News doesn’t know what I have said, then it ought not to be naming me as holding any position at all.
Returning to the question of the hierarchy, according to canon law jurisdiction is supplied under condition of common error, and this is true even for papal actions which would not otherwise be valid by reason of a lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assertion that the only valid bishops possibly remaining are those appointed by Pius XII, on the hypothesis that he was the most recent pope, is simply wrong.
When we turn from the validity of appointments to the question of the unity of social charity, and the unity of the profession of faith, we immediately think of the East. For in the East, the bishops didn't impose a new, synthetic, liturgy, and drive the faithful from their buildings, creating a giant schism, as happened in the West. Likewise, the flood of heresy has not been anywhere near as universal in the East as it has been in the West.
Even with respect to the West, I'm on record saying that Cardinal Burke, for example, seems manifestly to be a Catholic and I've challenged others to say why he isn't. I’ve received no reply. I also posed the example of Archbishop Chaput, although his case seems less clear, given his various positions.
The situation in the Church is incredibly confused, but if we adopt as our theory the notion that all nominal Catholics are truly members of the Mystical Body, we've destroyed its visible unity in faith and charity. So that's not a workable hypothesis.
The over-all principle, which explains why I don't recognise this allegation that we have lost faith in the Church, or that we regard the entire "official church" to have defected, etc., is that there are two possibilities, both easily able to be found in the manuals.
1. There's a pope reigning. The infallibility of the Church depends upon him as the keystone. With him, she brings infallibly the same faith and the same means of salvation to all men at all times. A bishop can err, but the vast bulk of them certainly cannot - when there's a pope. The pope supervises the bishops, ensures doctrinal orthodoxy and peace, and guides the entire Church with complete safety. He may make errors of prudence, but he cannot openly permit heterodoxy, and of course, he cannot replace the mass with a synthetic substitute designed to achieve the approval of Protestants.
2. There's no pope reigning. The bishops can go off in all manner of ways, and a good example is the Council of Rimini. The pope existed, but was not present. The bishops disappeared into heresy. The pope, when he heard, demanded a retraction from each and every one, on pain of losing their sees permanently. Another example is the Great Western Schism. Even if, as many say, there was a true pope all through (and that's my view too), he wasn't effectively present to all, only to some. Consequently, disunity flourished.
See this text by Cardinal Franzelin for some insights into the differences in the state of the Church when a pope is reigning, and when one is not: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1816
The point is that under either hypothesis, we're talking about the same Church, the same body, the same group of men, considered collectively, but with exceptions, more or less numerous. Saying that Francis isn't pope doesn't imply that all of the bishops are not the bishops of the Catholic Church, any more than saying that Benedict XIII wasn't pope implies that St. Vincent Ferrer wasn't a Catholic - or even a papal legate, actually. The whole point of taking the pope out of the picture is to save the Church from implications that are incompatible with her divinely guaranteed constitution. I could say - I won't, because unlike our opponents, I have sufficient imagination to see their perspective - that THEY have lost faith in the Church, precisely because they have demolished any real meaning of infallibility, of the Church as the secure ark of salvation, as our true and certain guide to eternal life, as our proximate rule of faith, etc. If the Church can give an evil mass, permit all manner of heresy to be taught to her children, persecute those who hold fast to the traditions we have received, etc., and is only infallible once per century under extraordinary conditions, then she's not the Church described by the Fathers and Doctors.
This crisis is an ecclesiological problem, par excellence, and sedevacantism is faith seeking understanding. Some people seem think that if they discredit sedevacantists as persons, they'll kill sedevacantism. They won't, because they have mis-diagnosed the cause. They think people like me are out there promoting sedevacantism and that's why it's a "threat". Nonsense. I mean, total silliness. They could string me up in a tree and they wouldn't make our view disappear, because the moment anybody seriously ponders the state of the Church he will keep coming back to the possibility that Paul VI et al have not been true popes.
Once this mis-diagnosis of the cause of sedevacantism is grasped, it becomes clear why the entire approach of certain campaigners is ad hominem, and also why that kind of campaign won't have any long-term effect.
In the mean time, we will have plenty to suffer, which is a gift, of course.
-
You propose that bishops do not need to be in possession of episcopal seats to be formal Apostolic Successors.
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches:
"Episcopi sunt Apostolorum successores atque ex divina institutione peculiaribus ecclesiis praeficiuntur quas cuм potestate ordinaria regunt sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis." [Canon 329, § 1, from the pio-benedictine Codex]
The legitimate possession of a Diocese and valid episcopal consecration are what constitutes Apostolic Succession. Even the Eastern-Orthodox say that one who is not in possession of a see cannot be a Successor to the Apostles.
By the canonical reception of the tonsure, a person is incardinated into a Diocese, and thus enters into the clerical state. Among the vagus-bishops of Sedevacantism, the act of conferring the tonsure is but an empty gesture, devoid of the meaning it has within genuine ecclesiastical life.
Aside from this; give me five names of sedevacantist bishops who were living simultaneously in 1960. I will state in advance that you cannot give these names, as they do not exist. You have created a pseudo-hierarchy, unrelated to the Catholic Episcopate of perpetually unbroken Succession, whose visible head today is Pope Francis.
-
For the continuation of Apostolic Succession there have to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Who are they, according to SVs? Name me one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction.
The idea that Church hierarchy constitutes of Traditionalist bishops who are supplied with jurisdiction by invisible Church is untenable, since it that scenario the Apostolic Succession ha ceased. Bishop des Lauriers realized that and thus proposed Cassiciacuм Thesis (which I find quite plausible).
I've seen some SVs making an argument that the retired bishops of Pope Pius XII still have ordinary jurisdiction because their resignation were to an Antipope (and thus invalid). The idea of the Apostolic Succession hanging on five bishops (I think there are only five Pius XII's bishops still left alive) who don't know that they actually have jurisdiction, stirkes me as rather desperate attempt to get around the problem of Apostolic Succession.
John Lane advances the theory that an Antipope can validly appoint bishops on the basis of supplied juridiction "for good of the Church". I do not have enough knowledge to judge whether this is possible, but that theory begs further questions - who is to judge which act of an Antipope is valid on the basis of supplied jurisdiction "for good of the Church", and which is not? Does appointing a modernist heretic as a bishop qualify? Or acceptance of the resignation of the orthodox bishop? It seems to me that this theory requires sifting every jurisdictional act of an Antipope through private judgment whether it is good for the Church or not.
-
You propose that bishops do not need to be in possession of episcopal seats to be formal Apostolic Successors.
Here is what the Catholic Church teaches:
"Episcopi sunt Apostolorum successores atque ex divina institutione peculiaribus ecclesiis praeficiuntur quas cuм potestate ordinaria regunt sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis." [Canon 329, § 1, from the pio-benedictine Codex]
The legitimate possession of a Diocese and valid episcopal consecration are what constitutes Apostolic Succession. Even the Eastern-Orthodox say that one who is not in possession of a see cannot be a Successor to the Apostles.
By the canonical reception of the tonsure, a person is incardinated into a Diocese, and thus enters into the clerical state. Among the vagus-bishops of Sedevacantism, the act of conferring the tonsure is but an empty gesture, devoid of the meaning it has within genuine ecclesiastical life.
Aside from this; give me five names of sedevacantist bishops who were living simultaneously in 1960. I will state in advance that you cannot give these names, as they do not exist. You have created a pseudo-hierarchy, unrelated to the Catholic Episcopate of perpetually unbroken Succession, whose visible head today is Pope Francis.
I propose no such thing. 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.
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?
-
For the continuation of Apostolic Succession there have to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Who are they, according to SVs? Name me one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction.
The idea that Church hierarchy constitutes of Traditionalist bishops who are supplied with jurisdiction by invisible Church is untenable, since it that scenario the Apostolic Succession ha ceased. Bishop des Lauriers realized that and thus proposed Cassiciacuм Thesis (which I find quite plausible).
I've seen some SVs making an argument that the retired bishops of Pope Pius XII still have ordinary jurisdiction because their resignation were to an Antipope (and thus invalid). The idea of the Apostolic Succession hanging on five bishops (I think there are only five Pius XII's bishops still left alive) who don't know that they actually have jurisdiction, stirkes me as rather desperate attempt to get around the problem of Apostolic Succession.
John Lane advances the theory that an Antipope can validly appoint bishops on the basis of supplied juridiction "for good of the Church". I do not have enough knowledge to judge whether this is possible, but that theory begs further questions - who is to judge which act of an Antipope is valid on the basis of supplied jurisdiction "for good of the Church", and which is not? Does appointing a modernist heretic as a bishop qualify? Or acceptance of the resignation of the orthodox bishop? It seems to me that this theory requires sifting every jurisdictional act of an Antipope through private judgment whether it is good for the Church or not.
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.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1814
The following are my posts from what became, briefly, a famous IA thread (from 2012):
__________________________________________________
The idea that the hierarchy is extinct if Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict have not truly been popes is obviously a very serious objection, and Guerard des Lauriers recognised it as such and developed his theory in order to address it. However there does not appear to be any need to adopt novelties such as his in order to answer this objection.
The situation in the Church is certainly confused, but these principles ought to assist clarity.
1. The acts of a false pope who was considered pope by most members of the Church would be validated by supplied jurisdiction due to common error. The exception would be acts such as accepting the resignation of Bishop de Castro Mayer in order to replace him with a Modernist, or the suppression of the SSPX, or the 1988 declaration of excommunications.
2 A non-Catholic cannot validly possess an office in the Church.
3. Merely going along with the reforms of V2 (e.g. Cardinals Siri, Bacci, Ottaviani, Archbishops Graber and Pintonello), did not suffice to put a man out of the Church, precisely because the reforms appeared to come from the Church.
4. Jurisdiction and orders are meant, by divine law, to coincide in the same persons. By divine law a woman cannot maintain habitual jurisdiction. But there is no divine law preventing jurisdiction being maintained by a layman who is a Catholic. This is not controversial. The layman ought not to possess jurisdiction, and is obliged to seek the relevant degree of orders once he has jurisdiction, but he maintains it prior to receiving the relevant orders.
Therefore many of the appointments to the episcopate by Paul VI, and possibly even JP2, would have been valid by supplied jurisdiction. Those ordinaries who are Catholics would truly be the ordinaries of their dioceses. Who these men are may become clear only after some climax of the crisis and a consequent reaction to orthodoxy, but the lack of clarity on our behalf doesn't change the fact that the true ordinaries are objectively visible. This is analogous to the situation which Cardinal Franzelin held to be the case during the Great Western Schism, when there was a true pope at all times, of the Roman line, but that this reality was impossibly obscure to nearly all. He was objectively visible as true pope, but this was not able to be determined by all who needed to know it.
A crass application of the notion of the Conciliar Church doesn't settle the matter. There is certainly a real social body which can be designated by that name, and it's certainly not possible to belong both to it and to the Catholic Church, but which men belong to each is not always clear. In many cases it's obviously unclear.
A fuller explanation is in the last part of this essay: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... Church.pdf
__________________________________________________
persona_non_grata wrote:
1. You mentioned that the modern popes are recognized by "most members of the Church". Then how do you justify refusing to acknowledge a universally accepted pope, which, according to the teaching of the Church, is an infallible sign of a papal election?
It isn't true that universal acceptance = certainly true pope.
What the theologians say is that the peaceful adherence of the whole Church to a pope is proof that he really is pope. Note the words "peaceful adherence".
The meaning of those terms is explained by examining the foundation of this doctrine, which is that the preaching of the hierarchy is the proximate (i.e. near) rule of faith for the whole Church. In other words, Catholics learn their faith from the living magisterium, not from reading Denzinger. The living magisterium is nothing to do with the Modernist notion of living tradition. It merely indicates that the teaching office is a permanently present reality exercised by the bishops, under the authority of the pope, and brings the same faith to the men of every age. It is infallible, and must be.
Now because the living magisterium is the proximate rule of faith of the Church, and because the Church is infallible, both actively and passively - that is, infallible in its teaching, and infallible in believing - then it follows that the whole Church cannot believe the doctrine of a false pope. To do so would be to fail in the faith, precisely by accepting as infallibly true, doctrines which emanate from a source which is not infallible.
This is why the theologians say the whole Church cannot peacefully adhere to a false pope. They say that the whole Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith, and the pope is our proximate rule of faith (along with the bishops under his authority, of course).
Now, you tell me, which Catholics treated Paul VI as their proximate rule of faith? Which Catholics treated Paul VI's bishops as their proximate rule of faith? The answer, plainly, is that only those who adopted his errors did so, and they left the Church by doing so (at least, their faith was damaged severely). It is precisely the ones who didn't treat him as their rule of faith that remained Catholic. As Archbishop Lefebvre put it, is it necessary to become Protestants in order to remain Catholic?
persona_non_grata wrote:
2. If I understood correctly, you said that not every person who accepts Vatican II is a heretic.
That's right. Here's Archbishop Lefebvre naming some of them, and also indicating that others exist, the names of which he obviously knows, but does not reveal:
Quote:
Were there any bishops supporting you [at Vatican II]?
Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.
How many bishops?
There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic faith.
What happened to all of these supporters?
Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position, which they feel may be useful at a later time.
Is anybody supporting you today (1978)?
Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintinello from Italy; Bishop Castro de Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.
persona_non_grata wrote:
3. You say that it is not possible to belong to both the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church, and you mention the words of +Lefebvre. However, isn't it true that +Lefebvre considered that the popes belong to the Conciliar Church (he made that clear from the start, after all, they promulgated the 'reforms') but also to the Catholic Church, since he went to talk with them and addressed them as Holy Father, and recognized them as popes?
Well, you really need to read my articles on Archbishop Lefebvre, especially the one linked above, and try and understand the Archbishop's thought.
In brief, he said that those who adhere to the errors of Vatican II, despite being aware that these errors are condemned by the Church, are not Catholics. But those who went along with the practical programme of Vatican II, without accepting its errors (see the names above for examples), remained Catholics.
He put the popes into a special category. For example, when questioned by the CDF in 1979 he replied that he was not sure whether Paul VI really promulgated the New Mass. Likewise he gave the benefit of the doubt to JP2 for a few years, then he formed the judgement that the latter wasn't a Catholic, and began speculating that he wasn't pope either.
In 1986 the Archbishop began putting up trial balloons to see if declaring the See of Rome vacant would be practically possible. He found very quickly that this would split the traditional Catholic milieu into pieces. He decided not to do so, but there is plenty of evidence that his own private opinion was that JP2 was not the pope.
__________________________________________________
Sede-privationism is an ambiguous term as it's used around the place. It was coined by Fr. Paul Morgan's father, Bill Morgan, and he meant by it the Thesis of Cassiciacuм of Guerard des Lauriers. Others these days use it to refer to the minority opinion among theologians that a heretical pope is not automatically deposed, but must be deposed by the Church. So I'm not sure which you mean, and either would imply some kind of power remaining in a true pope who became a heretic.
Of course, I don't accept the idea that a true pope can ever become a heretic, so I'm not really open to the minority opinion theory.
The difference between a false pope's acts being validated by supplied jurisdiction, and the Guerardian theory, is stark. In the latter, the notion is that none of the acts of the "material pope" would be valid except those which have a purely "legal" character and are necessary for the "legal" continuity of the Church. In this way the apointments of Paul VI to the office of cardinal were to be considered "materially" valid, and on that theory if the cardinals recovered their faith they would automatically become true cardinals and would be capable of validly electing the pope.
None of this is found in the theological literature. It's a complete novelty. And it's unnecessary.
Supplied jurisdiction is a concept which is extensively treated in the literature, certainly applies in cases of common error, and appears to solve the problem.
Likewise the election of a pope in the absence of any cardinals is treated explicitly in the literature, by St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Cajetan, and countless others since. It's a non-problem also. Either the remaining members of the Roman clergy could elect (i.e. all those who have recieved first tonsure in Rome, and have not apostatised, or have recovered their faith after apostasy), or failing that, an imperfect general council could elect.
The situation is certainly confused and mysterious, but it is not necessary to abandon any of the truths found in the theology manuals in order to solve it.
__________________________________________________
The dogmatic pronouncements of a general council are infallible. The preaching of all the bishops throughout the world, in union with the pope, is infallible.
Catholics who remained faithful, rejected doctrines that fell within both categories.
Now, in order to explain this, which was necessary, some have postulated that Paul VI was not pope, and therefore the very lynchpin of infallibility was not present, and some have tried to re-write the theology of the Church in respect of infallibility instead. You apparently follow the novel theories on infallibility. I can't do that, because I thnk they are erroneous and of course dangerous.
__________________________________________________
Possibilities are all we need, and the notion that our thesis is impossible immediately falls. This is logic.
If somebody were to say, no man could have sailed a boat from Europe or Africa to South America with the technology of the Ancient World, then one only needs a single successful voyage made in a reed boat in the present era to see that the thesis that such a thing is impossible cannot be maintained. Thor Heyerdahl did it, and revolutionised several human sciences.
In the case of V2, we know that Cardinal Siri was personally orthodox, continued to profess the faith, and yet he allowed the reforms of Vatican II throughout his archdiocese. This is the very heart of the mystery of the crisis in the Church. A whole new religion was implicit in these reforms, but not every priest or bishop who adopted the reforms adopted that new religion, and thereby left the Church. So far I don't think there would be any disagreement between you and I, or indeed any traditional Catholic. And it's a mystery we all need to explain, one way or another.
I don't know who amongst the Novus Ordo hierarchy might still be Catholics, but it would be an interesting exercise to run through the well-known conservative members of it and try and work it out in each case. For example, you've got men like Charles Chaput, who is capable of this kind of comment: “Let us preach Jesus Christ with all the energy of our lives. And let us support each other – whatever the cost – so that when we make our accounting to the Lord, we will be numbered among the faithful and courageous, and not the cowardly or the evasive, or those who compromised until there was nothing left of their convictions; or those who were silent when they should have spoken the right word at the right time.”
The point is that true faith is compatible with material error. One would need in each case to work out whether somebody like this maintains the errors he no doubt expresses despite being conscious of the fact that they conflict with the teaching of the Church. I don't know much about this man, so I'm not making any case for his orthodoxy. I just point out that unless in each case we form the certain judgement that this baptised man left the Church, we have no business saying that all such men left the Church. And such an exercise would be a very large project, I think you will agree.
For some reason when somebody says "Paul VI wasn't a Catholic," non-sedes think, "Oh, that means everybody else isn't Catholic too!" I have no idea why that is. Perhaps you could explain.
And yes, I agree with you that the blanket statement, "The hierarchy of the Novus Ordo is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church" is problematic. I've said it myself, of course. It depends upon what is meant by it, just as Archbishop Lefebvre's assertion that the Novus Ordo reforms are a whole new religion must be understood correctly, with appropriate distinctions. What he didn't mean, was that all who didn't immediately reject every reform thereby adopted the new religion and left the Church.
So that's one point.
Another is to consider the multitude of retired bishops around the world, living in nursing homes, retirement homes, etc. If any of these are orthodox, it is quite possible they retain their ordinary jurisdiction. The reason for this is that in order to be valid, a resignation must be accepted by a lawful superior. But if JP2 wasn't pope, then all of the resignations made to him by bishops would, on the face of it, be invalid.
In a general reaction to orthodoxy, after some cataclysm that awakens the world from its worldy slumber, such men could be approached and called to a general council, at which a pope could be elected, just as happened at Constance.
Another possibility arises from the fact that an office is a stable position to which is permanently attached some power, of orders or jurisdiction. In the case of episcopal sees, the power is ordinary jurisdiction. Most of the sees in the world today were established by indubitable popes. A man elected by the clergy of a diocese to such an episcopal see, would receive ordinary jurisdiction immediately, jurisdiction which comes as it must from the Roman Pontiff, because the Roman Pontiff attached it to the see permanently. He would obviously make some declaration that he holds his office only by appeal to the future approval of the Roman Pontiff, but prior to that approval actually being received, he would have the office, truly de jure and not just de facto. This argument is at least probable, which is all we need.
Anyway, no matter how unlikely you think any of these possibilities is, they must be eliminated completely before one could assert that they are not possibilities.
One only needs to read the history of the Great Western Schism and some of the theological/canonical discussion of it by subsequent experts to realise that the most absurdly unlikely things may actually have been factual. But unlikely things happen all the time. It was unlikely that the Titanic would sink, even more unlikely that she would do so on her maiden voyage. It was unlikely that the title afixed to the top of the Cross would survive, legible, including its three languages - Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. You can go and see it in Rome today. It was buried on Golgotha for three hundred years and dug up by St. Helen. It was unlikely that a man could cross the Atlantic in a boat made of reeds. It's been done. It was unlikely that there was an objectively visible true pope all through the forty years of the Great Western Schism, yet Cardinal Franzelin says that is true, even though he was not recognised by miracle-working saints like St. Vincent Ferrer.
Vatican II was about the most unlikely event in the history of the Church. Yet it happened.
The real difference between somebody like me, and the dogmatic sedeplenist, is not in where we think the Church is. The real difference is actually very narrow, yet very, very important. The dogmatic sedeplenist effectively reduces the whole question to whether Benedict is pope. Then everything must be made to conform to that dogma. The dogmatic sedevacantist does the same thing, in reverse. He makes recognition of Benedict the one shibboleth for membership in the Church, and ends with a little sliver of a church of which he and his friends are the only members.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a dogmatic sedeplenist.
-
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.
-
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 fale 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.
Well stated.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I propose no such thing.
Which episcopal seats do you claim the sedevacantist bishops to possess?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
I propose no such thing.
Which episcopal seats do you claim the sedevacantist bishops to possess?
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.
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
-EDIT-
-
Did you miss my point that they did not have to be SV bishops in order to be valid and have ordinary jurisdiction?
Stop deflecting, and admit that Sedevacantism is false. You have been spamming this forum for years. The time has come to be a man and admit defeat.
-
Theologians generally agree that the cessation of all ordinary jurisdiction would compromise the indefectibility of the Church.
Ladislaus,
This is simply not true. You are unable support this assertion with any evidence from trustworthy sources.
The Canon which I have cited in this thread proves that ordinary episcopal jurisdiction exists iure divino within the Church, and can thus never wane. Episcopi vagi are no teachers, doctors nor pastors of the Church; they are canonical lay men with valid sacramental orders, like the Eastern-Orthodox.
Here, believe it or not, I agree with Ladislaus. There is plenty of evidence that would support his assertion but I will let him fend for himself.
Tell me there is not a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction and I'll tell you the Church has defected.
-
I had misread Ladislaus' post, and thought that he was saying that a cessation of ordinary jurisdiction would not compromise ecclesial indefectibility. I have edited my post and I apologise to him for the mistake.
It is one of my capital points that ordinary jurisdiction must always perdure within the Church, and that this proves the falsity of Sedevacantism.
-
It is one of my capital points that ordinary jurisdiction must always perdure within the Church, and that this proves the falsity of Sedevacantism.
Your ipse dixit proves your ignorance. What bishop do you submit to?
-
What bishop do you submit to?
Monseigneur Johan Bonny, per gratiam Apostolicae Sedis Antverpiae Episcopus.
You are completely unable to locate a sedevacantist hierarchy claiming to be in possession of episcopal sees, while the true Church must always be easily located.
Do you truly not see the contradictions of your teachings with those of the Church, or do you consciously refuse to submit to the truth?
-
What bishop do you submit to?
Monseigneur Johan Bonny, per gratiam Apostolicae Sedis Antverpiae Episcopus.
You are completely unable to locate a sedevacantist hierarchy claiming to be in possession of episcopal sees, while the true Church must always be easily located.
Do you truly not see the contradictions of your teachings with those of the Church, or do you consciously refuse to submit to the truth?
Is he a valid Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction?
Again, the valid hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction do not have to be SV. If you are going to accuse me of things make the accusation accurate.
-
Not this Bishop right?
https://www.ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/belgian-bishop-advocates-church-recognition-gαy-relationships
-
Is he a valid Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction?
Yes. I obey his legitimate commands, and oppose his heresies, as it is required.
Your bishops have valid episcopal orders, but no ordinary jurisdiction. They are episcopi vagi. I refer to you once again the Canon which I have cited in this very thread, and which you unfortunately ignore.
-
thanks for that link LoT. It ceases to surprise me that a sodomite apologist would hold the office of Bishop in newchurch. He's probably gαy himself and is a practicing sodomite. When Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and condemned sex outside of matrimony, he obviously meant to completely proscribe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. If sex outside of marriage is impermissible, and marriage is only between a man and woman, then it follows as the night follows the day that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is never permissible. The words of christ won't stop newchurch though. Soon you'll see gαy lovers receiving communion, then you'll see them at the altar.
Exilenomore will be there, hard pressed, but ever loyal to the stench-church.
-
thanks for that link LoT. It ceases to surprise me that a sodomite apologist would hold the office of Bishop in newchurch. He's probably gαy himself and is a practicing sodomite. When Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and condemned sex outside of matrimony, he obviously meant to completely proscribe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. If sex outside of marriage is impermissible, and marriage is only between a man and woman, then it follows as the night follows the day that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is never permissible. The words of christ won't stop newchurch though. Soon you'll see gαy lovers receiving communion, then you'll see them at the altar.
Exilenomore will be there, hard pressed, but ever loyal to the stench-church.
Right. He has ecclesiastical law for normal times law trump the divine law that would allow the Church to continue through the only known legitimately Catholic Bishops and would have a heretical sodomistic hierarchy over a traditional Catholic one.
-
There is no evidence that His Excellency is a sodomite himself. He defends that vile sin, and he must be opposed in that. But you cannot accuse a Bishop of personally having perpetrated the sin against nature, which cries to Heaven for vengeance, without presenting evidence.
qeddeq, you once again betray the arbitrary nature of your sectarian doctrine. You simply make things up as you go, without letting even a basic sense of justice get in your way. That said, you are straying the disputation away from the subject of locating the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Right. He has ecclesiastical law for normal times law trump the divine law that would allow the Church to continue through the only known legitimately Catholic Bishops and would have a heretical sodomistic hierarchy over a traditional Catholic one.
Have you read the Canon? It clearly states that Bishops in possession of episcopal seats exist within the Church by divine institution. It is not a lex humana, but a lex divina. Your bishops do not even claim to possess dioceses; ergo, your hierarchy is not the Catholic Episcopate.
The right of electing a Bishop for the See of Antwerp does not belong to me, but to the Roman Pontiff. That the choice of Monseigneur Bonny is a disastrous one does not alter that fact. The Pope is the principle of episcopal authority, not the people. I am not a revolutionary; I recognise legitimate authority instead of overthrowing it. We, Europeans who have the faith, are sick of revolutions, and we want order restored. I want to combat the nefarious agenda of my Bishop, but I refuse to usurp authority which I do not have as a lay man.
And what I have said to qeddeq, I repeat to you: You have no right to accuse my Bishop of having committed sodomy when you are unable to provide evidence of that.
The Archbishop of Valencia has recently been threatened with imprisonment for having condemned sodomism. Where are the sedevacantist bishops who are being persecuted in this way? Would you call this Archbishop a "sodomite hierarch" as well? If you are calling the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy a "heretical sodomistic hierarchy", then you simply have no love for the truth.
-
There is no evidence that His Excellency is a sodomite himself. He defends that vile sin, and he must be opposed in that. But you cannot accuse a Bishop of personally having perpetrated the sin against nature, which cries to Heaven for vengeance, without presenting evidence.
qeddeq, you once again betray the arbitrary nature of your sectarian doctrine. You simply make things up as you go, without letting even a basic sense of justice get in your way. That said, you are straying the disputation away from the subject of locating the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Right. He has ecclesiastical law for normal times law trump the divine law that would allow the Church to continue through the only known legitimately Catholic Bishops and would have a heretical sodomistic hierarchy over a traditional Catholic one.
Have you read the Canon? It clearly states that Bishops in possession of episcopal seats exist within the Church by divine institution. It is not a lex humana, but a lex divina. Your bishops do not even claim to possess dioceses; ergo, your hierarchy is not the Catholic Episcopate.
The right of electing a Bishop for the See of Antwerp does not belong to me, but to the Roman Pontiff. That the choice of Monseigneur Bonny is a disastrous one does not alter that fact. The Pope is the principle of episcopal authority, not the people. I am not a revolutionary; I recognise legitimate authority instead of overthrowing it. We, Europeans who have the faith, are sick of revolutions, and we want order restored. I want to combat the nefarious agenda of my Bishop, but I refuse to usurp authority which I do not have as a lay man.
And what I have said to qeddeq, I repeat to you: You have no right to accuse my Bishop of having committed sodomy when you are unable to provide evidence of that.
The Archbishop of Valencia has recently been threatened with imprisonment for having condemned sodomism. Where are the sedevacantist bishops who are being persecuted in this way? Would you call this Archbishop a "sodomite hierarch" as well? If you are calling the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy a "heretical sodomistic hierarchy", then you simply have no love for the truth.
You either refuse to acknowledge or do not understand what I have presented or you would have tried to directly refute it.
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question. Answer it if you are an intellectually honest person after truth rather than your preference.
-
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.
I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.
A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.
Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.
-
The right of electing a Bishop for the See of Antwerp does not belong to me, but to the Roman Pontiff.
I have to make a correction here. The Roman Pontiff does not elect bishops, but he appoints them.
-
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.
I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.
A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.
Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
-
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.
I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.
A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.
Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
But there was no point in the history when the Church did not have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction possesing Episcopal sees. You admitted that lack of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction means defection of the Church - thus, can you name me one bishop who, according to you, has ordinary jurisdiction? If you can't, it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy which must exist for the continuity of the Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend sedevacantism against the charge of disappearence of the Church.
-
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.
I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.
A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.
Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
But there was no point in the history when the Church did not have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction possesing Episcopal sees. You admitted that lack of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction means defection of the Church - thus, can you name me one bishop who, according to you, has ordinary jurisdiction? If you can't, it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy which must exist for the continuity of the Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend sedevacantism against the charge of disappearence of the Church.
I maintain that the known Catholic Bishops have it based upon the tacit approval of the Holy See.
There is much disagreement about this. Many far more knowledgeable than me disagree. My response is can they definitively disagree or is this only their opinion which, IMO is based solely upon ecclesiastical law not Divine Law.
Your saying "things appear to be this way to me therefore SV cannot be true".
But how things appear to you is not necessarily true. In fact you have it backwards. Saying a dead man appears to be dead but their is no apparent cause of death does not change the fact.
The SV says a public heretic cannot be Pope and Francis is a public heretic. Even more that a valid pope cannot bind and maintain on the Church what the false Popes purport to bind and maintain on the Church. There is no way around this whether we want to have a Pope or not.
The result is confusion. All knowledgeable SVs know there must be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction for the Church not to have defected and they all insist on it.
Most claim they are with the NO or hidden. I claim, admitting I could be wrong, that they are with are traditional Catholic Bishops whether they make the claim for themselves or not.
We are in a terrible situation and we should have charity prevail on these things. The next valid pope will hopefully settle the issues that have come up since 1958.
All ask you. What Bishop do you submit to? Who is your hierarchy?
-
This is your Bishop :
"We have to look inside the church for a formal recognition of the kind of interpersonal relationship that is also present in many gαy couples. Just as there are a variety of legal frameworks for partners in civil society, one must arrive at a diversity of forms in the church. … The intrinsic values are more important to me than the institutional question. The Christian ethic is based on lasting relationships where exclusivity, loyalty, and care are central to each other."
The "intrinsic values" of a committed sodomite relationship are more important than the "institutional question", aka church dogma. What are these "bishops" in newchurch bound by? Can you tell me how such a statement from a bishop is even possible? He is not aware of the fundamentals of catholic dogma?
-
the anti-SV people want some sort of tribunal before they can declare that the sky is blue. They want a trial for the pope to prove what is already publicly known, or "notorious", although a notorious heretic is ipso facto outside the church. What sort of trial do you propose? Who will be the judges? On what basis will they judge him? Canon law? I'm not sure the pope can be tried on the basis of canon law. I would like to see the details of this proposed tribunal. I would gladly welcome such an inquisition, not just for the pope but for all the bishops and clergy.
-
This is your Bishop :
What, you think it is impossible that a Bishop would propagate heresy? If that were the case, then Nestorius would not have held his infamous Christmas sermon many centuries past.
I'm not sure the pope can be tried on the basis of canon law. I would like to see the details of this proposed tribunal.
The Pope cannot be tried on the basis of human laws, since he is above these, but before he loses the papal office, he must nevertheless have spurned public admonitions directed to him by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is all basic. God hates disorder, and the system of the Sedevacantists is just that; disorder. The Church, being a public society, simply does not work that way. Added to that, the whole Episcopate cannot be unaware of a Pope losing his office, due to the theological principle of universal recognition, since the God-given quality of indefectibility excludes the possibility of the Church submitting itself to a principle of schism, which a false pope essentially is.
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
What happened before? That the universal Church has been bereft of bishops in possession of episcopal seats? No, that has never happened before, it is not happening today, and it will never happen in the future. And I was not saying that this was hypothetically possible; I was referring to appointment of bishops to dioceses, with the explicit jurisdiction to do so, during interregna, and not to your mutilated concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Read what I have written, and then read what you have answered. That is troll behaviour, and if you insist on continuing it, then do not bother expecting more responses from me. I am not foolish enough to waste my time with such games.
-
has your bishop been admonished that he is teaching heresy? Do you think he will be admonished?
Suppose an entire ecuмenical council were to teach heresy, and that all of the bishops and popes thereafter were to teach this heresy. Who admonishes them?
-
A heresy can never be universally taught within the Church by all the bishops alive.
Reform will come. If you will not receive rational argumentation, then the facts of history yet to be written will confound you when they will unfold before your eyes. God has always preserved his Holy Church Catholic, even during the darkest hours, and he will continue to do so. He will exalt her, perhaps through (and I say it with sadness) the crucible of persecution. Next year, the centennial of the Fatima apparitions will have dawned upon mankind, and we will have to wait and see what will take place. From the request of the Sacred Heart of Jesus for the consecration of France to the French Revolution, there were a hundred years. In 1917, the Immaculate Heart of Mary requested the consecration of Russia, and a hundred years will soon have passed.
Denying the possibility of reform within the Church is an act of faithless souls. The Church is a divine institution, and she has seen empires totter and the destruction of nations; she, however, has survived them, and she will survive her present tribulations as well.
-
are you denying that vatican 2 was heresy? the entire church has taught it since 1965.I'm trying to grasp your theory: vatican 2 taught substantial heresy, all the popes and bishops have taught this heresy for some 50 years(except the SV and sspx groups) and yet you maintain that this body remains the catholic church. We are not talking about reform in the sense of reforming an abuse, we are talking about substantial heresy, a rupture with the church's teaching that has lasted for many decades. Your theory cannot explain this. Your theory also cannot explain the future: that it has grown worse. I want you to tell me that vatican 2 was not substantially heretical in its teachings.
-
1)"reform will come". Tell me how this reform can come about. Do you mean the repudiation of Vatican 2? If that happens, then this group of reformers will have to declare that V2 was not a true council of the church. They will need to declare that it was not an act of the extraordinary magisterium but a false council.
They will then need to declare that all the popes until that point were at least material heretics. They will need to change the church root and branch from the seminaries to the grade school classrooms. All of the encyclicals written since 1962 will need to be declared heretical insofar as they taught the heresies of vatican 2.
2) now who currently teaches correct doctrine and practice? We have such a group. What happens when they try to reform the church? They lose all canonical status. These "reformers" have existed for 50 years but what reception do they get?
3)If it were not for the SV groups you wouldn't have a valid mass. You would have the novus ordo missae, which is not valid. You would certainly not have the tridentine mass. That would've dead and buried, never to be seen again. You would not have a roman missal issued before 1962, when substantial changes were made to the liturgy to placate Jєωs and protestants.
-
are you denying that vatican 2 was heresy?
Vatican II was a Council, not a doctrine by itself. Texts such as Dignitatis humanae, that have emanated from the Pope and a certain amount of Council Fathers contain grievous errors, and they must be condemned and renounced. The formulations used by the Supreme Pontiff to authorise such texts were of a low binding force, and they are comparable to those used when, for example, approving a book. People stare themselves blind upon the titles of docuмents ("constitution", "encyclical" etc.), but the magisterium of the Church does not work in such a bureaucratic way. The formulations in the texts themselves are what matter, and a Pope could even solemnly define a dogma during a sermon, if the necessary criteria would be fulfilled. The form of expressions used by Pope Paul VI made the convening of an Eucuмenical Council pointless.
Furthermore, none of the Vatican II texts containing errors have been signed by all the Bishops. You are wrong to claim that the whole Episcopate teaches these errors.
God has preserved His Church unto our days, and He will continue to do so. As I have already said, reform (which will include the extirpation of heresy) will come, and those who deny that it is possible are saying that the arm of God is too short, which is a blasphemy.
And it is not true that you Sedevacantists are the reason why the old Mass still exists within the Church. God does not need you to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical traditions.
-
I take that long winded answer as a no, that you do not deny that V2 taught substantial heresy. We have your admission.
-
What bishop do you submit to?
Monseigneur Johan Bonny, per gratiam Apostolicae Sedis Antverpiae Episcopus.
Is he a valid Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction?
Dear Exilenomore,
Your "Bishop" may not even be a priest. In order to accept him as a Bishop or priest, I would first have to be certain about the validity of the new ordination rite and the new formula for consecrating bishops. I am not certain about them. Was he ordained by a new rite bishop in the old or new rite of ordination?
I believe this is where LOT was going with his question, and you did not respond to him.
-
The formulations used by the Supreme Pontiff to authorise such texts were of a low binding force, and they are comparable to those used when, for example, approving a book.
Nice try, but, uhm, no. Not even close.
-
God has preserved His Church unto our days, and He will continue to do so. As I have already said, reform (which will include the extirpation of heresy) will come, and those who deny that it is possible are saying that the arm of God is too short, which is a blasphemy.
And it is not true that you Sedevacantists are the reason why the old Mass still exists within the Church. God does not need you to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical traditions.
I agree God doesn't need Sedevacantism to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical, however God uses us as His instruments as He had done over and over again in the history of His Church, using His faithful as instruments.
Get one thing straight, to accept Sedevantism does not mean we deny the Papacy we are Ultramontane in our belief. We defend the Pope and his authority, you are defending error. One can't defend error in matters of faith and morals and still be Catholic because the Church is a DIVINE INSTITUTION, it can not lead souls to Hell.
Those who have separated from the novus ordo are His remnant; to dare say that those who are keeping the faith and want nothing to do with heresy claim "the arm of God is too short" are the lost. Those who say that! They put their faith in material things, not in the spiritual. They judge the Church to be where the buildings, land and possessions including treasures such as relics, writings of True Popes are kept to be the Church, but in truth they have robbed those from the Church. They disregard completely what the definition of The Church IS.
Why? Would the Vatican name their new telescope on Mount Graham after Lucifer? That alone should wake up anyone with an ounce of grace.
http://tinyurl.com/jtr5ch6
-
Not this Bishop right?
https://www.ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/belgian-bishop-advocates-church-recognition-gαy-relationships
Our sense of right and wrong comes from God, we do practically nothing good on our own. To me this "bishop's" support of sodomite "relationships," shows me that he has been abandoned by God. He is not even Catholic.
God is clearly showing us that this person is not Catholic.
-
The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.
What happened before? That the universal Church has been bereft of bishops in possession of episcopal seats? No, that has never happened before, it is not happening today, and it will never happen in the future. And I was not saying that this was hypothetically possible; I was referring to appointment of bishops to dioceses, with the explicit jurisdiction to do so, during interregna, and not to your mutilated concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Read what I have written, and then read what you have answered. That is troll behaviour, and if you insist on continuing it, then do not bother expecting more responses from me. I am not foolish enough to waste my time with such games.[/quote]
Again. Bishops have been consecrated and have had ordinary jurisdiction in the past during interregnums.