Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16220 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #45 on:** August 22, 2012, 08:15:51 AM »

Just to make sure I was clear in my long-winded sentences.

My response to those who wrongly held valid Popes were not valid were deemed wrong:

Not because public heretics can be Pope.

But because they wrongly believed he was a public heretic when he was not.

I think most good willed traditionalists would agree that Paul 6, JP2 and Ratzinger were/are indeed public heretics.

Therefore the argument about people being wrong about Popes in the past is not based on what the Church teaching and Divine Law the SVs of today teach but on the fact that they, if they truly were Popes, during the entirety of their Pontificate, not public heretics, but ambiguous, private heretics, or in one case taught heresy but accepted correction right away.

In our situation, we are not talking about a letter, or ambiguous teaching only, or a heresy that was private, or a public heresy that was corrected, or one who coward from teaching plainly during a crisis, but clear cut public heretics, who do in regards to the liturgy, sacraments, council, catechims, code of canon law, what no valid Pope can do.

Do any of the bad, weak, ambiguous Popes of the past compare to Paul 6, JP2 and Ratzinger in regards to what they have bound on their Church?

Remember what valid Popes bind on the Church, God binds in Heaven, and if those guys are valid Popes we must accept the council, the sacraments, the liturgy, the code of canon law, and the catechism. But we cannot accept . . . therefore . . .

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #46 on:** August 22, 2012, 12:46:35 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Almost all traditional Bishops themselves acknowledge it, I believe. At least the St.Pius X society has frequently written about it, and Archbishop Lefebvre certainly knew it. On the practical and pastoral level, supplied jurisdiction more than suffices.

Positing that the that the acephalous traditionalist clergy have somehow formal Apostolic succession and jurisdiction that is not supplied by the Church herself in the individual instances in which the principles of epikeia would apply without exceeding the measure of prudence is a rash error, to put it mildly.

Sedevacantists such as Mr. Griff Ruby err grossly in ignoring that it is a fact that the sedevacantist acephalous clerics of the traditionalist movement have only supplied jurisdiction: something substantiated by their own assertion that the Apostolic See is vacant or usurped. Without the Roman Pontiff, none of these clerics can be said to have an Canonical office or mission, and they cannot claim formal Apostolic succession, nor habitual jurisdiction.

Consult Msgr. Van Noort's discussion of the crucial difference between the powers of Orders than of Jurisdiction in Christ's Church, translated and edited by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #47 on:** August 22, 2012, 01:09:40 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS TO BE PROVEN, DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE THE CHURCH DISAPPEAR? THE VALID BISHIPS AND PRIESTS SEEM VISIBLE TO ME

It is not only the visibility of the Church that is at stake here, but her Apostolicity as well, which requires that she always be constituted as a society wherein some rule by virtue of their office and some obey according to their state as lay faithful. All agree that a Church that lacks jurisdiction (as for example, a schismatic sect would lack) would thereby and for that reason cease to be Apostolic. But it is of divine faith that the Catholic Church must be Apostolic.

This seems to be the labyrinthine conundrum that we all face, especially those who posit that the Apostolic See is presently vacant or usurped.

Consult Msgr. Van Noort's discussion of the Apostolicity of the Church in Christ's Church, translated and edited by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 22, 2012, 02:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Nishant
Almost all traditional Bishops themselves acknowledge it, I believe. At least the St.Pius X society has frequently written about it, and Archbishop Lefebvre certainly knew it. On the practical and pastoral level, supplied jurisdiction more than suffices.

Positing that the that the acephalous traditionalist clergy have somehow formal Apostolic succession and jurisdiction that is not supplied by the Church herself in the individual instances in which the principles of epikeia would apply without exceeding the measure of prudence is a rash error, to put it mildly.

Sedevacantists such as Mr. Griff Ruby err grossly in ignoring that it is a fact that the sedevacantist acephalous clerics of the traditionalist movement have only supplied jurisdiction: something substantiated by their own assertion that the Apostolic See is vacant or usurped. Without the Roman Pontiff, none of these clerics can be said to have an Canonical office or mission, and they cannot claim formal Apostolic succession, nor habitual jurisdiction.

Consult Msgr. Van Noort's discussion of the crucial difference between the powers of Orders than of Jurisdiction in Christ's Church, translated and edited by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):

Malleus: All fine and good in the context of normal times - it is rather imprudent and rash to assume that epikeia is only in the domain of jurisdiction in an ecclesiastic sense , when in fact it is employed under Divine Law .

Like it or not your opinion and that of the cited theologians is therefore being quoted out of context. Apostolic Succession is a Divine Institution present under the Sacrament of Holy Orders - Rules that govern Ecclesiastic Jusrisdiction are not.

pax

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #49 on:** August 22, 2012, 03:24:28 PM »

Quote from: Malleus 01

Malleus: All fine and good in the context of normal times - it is rather imprudent and rash to assume that epikeia is only in the domain of jurisdiction in an ecclesiastic sense , when in fact it is employed under Divine Law .

Like it or not your opinion and that of the cited theologians is therefore being quoted out of context. Apostolic Succession is a Divine Institution present under the Sacrament of Holy Orders - Rules that govern Ecclesiastic Jusrisdiction are not.

pax

It is not "opinion" but the teaching of the Church.

I do not know what you are trying to say, but to posit that the acephalous clergy can exercise jurisdiction and claim Apostolic succession by divine right without the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is rash and erroneous, and contrary to the teachings of the theologians.