Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16229 times)

SJB · « **Reply #60 on:** August 23, 2012, 06:29:17 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Regarding the ancient discipline, which has been the subject of some posts above, Pope Pius XII expressly says that it has long been revoked, and that he has established the new discipline for the whole Church, which also takes its sanction from the faith laid out at the Vatican Council of the Supreme Pontiff's universal jurisdiction.

So due distinctions must be made. While in the first ages of Christendom, such consecrations were lawful under the positive law of the Church itself subject to the provisions made or consented to by the Roman Pontiff, today they would be lawful but only under epikeia in cases of necessity.

There must be a distinction to be made between a bishop being chosen to rule a territory and a bishop being consecrated to provide a sacramental need (perceived, at least), as in holy oils, confirmations, and ordinations. The former is a normal role for a bishop, the latter is an incomplete role.

SJB · « **Reply #61 on:** August 23, 2012, 06:51:42 PM »

Consideration fo the following might be in order as well:

Quote from: McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology

413. In its use epieikeia is at once lawful and dangerous.

(a) It is lawful, for it defends the common good, the judgment of conscience, the rights of individuals from subjection to a written docuмent and from oppression by the abuse of power;

(b) It is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of the common good as well as of self.

415. The dangers of epieikeia also place limitations on its use.
(a) There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one's ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now.

(b) There is the danger that one may be in bad faith in deciding that the common good or justice requires the use of epieikeia; the motive in reality may be self-interest or escape from obligation. Hence, a person should not use epieikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.

Ambrose · « **Reply #62 on:** August 23, 2012, 08:40:27 PM »

Quote

I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.

I do not know if this was referring to my post, but if so, we are agreed. It cannot apply to the traditional bishops, but it can apply to diocesan bishops who are received into the the diocese by their diocesan clergy, as this recognition would give them legitimacy and the tacit recognition of the pope.

SJB · « **Reply #63 on:** August 23, 2012, 08:51:53 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.

I do not know if this was referring to my post, but if so, we are agreed. It cannot apply to the traditional bishops, but it can apply to diocesan bishops who are received into the the diocese by their diocesan clergy, as this recognition would give them legitimacy and the tacit recognition of the pope.

The pope now appoints all bishops. Why would the Diocesan clergy "receive" any other candidate? Their approval isn't necessary, nor do they have any role in choosing the candidate.

Ambrose · « **Reply #64 on:** August 23, 2012, 09:15:41 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.

I do not know if this was referring to my post, but if so, we are agreed. It cannot apply to the traditional bishops, but it can apply to diocesan bishops who are received into the the diocese by their diocesan clergy, as this recognition would give them legitimacy and the tacit recognition of the pope.

The pope now appoints all bishops. Why would the Diocesan clergy "receive" any other candidate? Their approval isn't necessary, nor do they have any role in choosing the candidate.

I am referring to a case where there is no pope. That was the context. I was responding to the article from Bp. Pivarunas, which gives the names of some diocesan bishops who were recognized as bishops during a state of sedevacante.

The principle is clear and Catholic. During a state of sedevacante, diocesan bishops can fill the vacancy of their diocese by tacit recognition of the pope, as they are received into their diocese by the clergy of that diocese.

This has not been done in this crisis, but it has been recognized as lawful in the history of the Church. Read more here: http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm