-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=44&catname=10
Father Stepanich who offered the pre-Bugnini Mass before his illness, is a man whose teachings I would fear to question:
Note: Father Stépanich is a Franciscan priest who was ordained in 1941 and who holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University. He has never offered the New Mass and over the years has carried on an extensive apostolate of correspondence with Catholics who resist the Vatican II errors.
The following letters are his response to an objection one frequently hears made against sedevacantism.
* * * * *
November 30, 2002
Dear Correspondent:
You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”
You, understandably, wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.
The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.
Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?
You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes. You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter. That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died. This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.
But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.
You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.”
Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.
Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.
That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.
Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected. And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”
Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.
So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.
What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.
Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy. But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.
We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight. But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.
If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope. God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.
God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.
Nothing is impossible with God.
Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
* * * * *
March 25, 2003
Dear Faithful Catholic:
Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.
Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.
But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002. Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”
Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.
Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end. Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there. They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes. But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I. It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”
Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes. Their imagination has gotten them into an impossible situation. They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope. At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope. They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.
Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.
But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I. You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be. You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.
Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair. The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man. To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself.
Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
-
Well done. I find this part especially edifying:
" What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome. "
How many arguments have we seen over the years where people are attempting to say that the "Gates of Hell have prevailed " or "Because the entire College of Cardinals is presumed Heretical , electing a new Pope is impossible" Etc Etc Etc.
I think it is important to understand that the Papacy was established by GOD , the Son. And because it was established by GOD the Son , nothing can ever destroy it. A False Pope or the Vatican full of Heretics cannot destroy what 260 POPES have perpetuated. Sooner of later either there will be 261 or the Second Coming. The Papacy is not at an end. Nor have the Gates of Hell prevailed.
Pax
-
Christ's promise must be understood as the Church herself understands it.
"Gates of hell" refers to heresies and heretics.
"Church built on Peter" refers to the Holy Roman Church.
To assert that the one has prevailed against the other, in such wise as to mean that the See of Peter and all the episcopal sees of that city are vacant due to heresy does appear precisely to go against that.
If perpetual successors are interpreted in this way, they are entirely robbed of their meaning. The Council intended not simply to define the continuation of the primacy of Peter in the Church but also its visible identification with the Bishopric of Rome, against the Greek schismatics and others.
Is even a 500 year interregnum incompatible with this understanding of "perpetual successors"? It's also an invalid argument to say the fact of something like a three year interregnum proves a 50 year interregnum poses no problems. It's like saying, if I can breathe underwater for 2 minutes, I can also breathe underwater for 2 hours.
-
Christ's promise must be understood as the Church herself understands it.
"Gates of hell" refers to heresies and heretics.
"Church built on Peter" refers to the Holy Roman Church.
To assert that the one has prevailed against the other, in such wise as to mean that the See of Peter and all the episcopal sees of that city are vacant due to heresy does appear precisely to go against that.
If perpetual successors are interpreted in this way, they are entirely robbed of their meaning. The Council intended not simply to define the continuation of the primacy of Peter in the Church but also its visible identification with the Bishopric of Rome, against the Greek schismatics and others.
Is even a 500 year interregnum incompatible with this understanding of "perpetual successors"? It's also an invalid argument to say the fact of something like a three year interregnum proves a 50 year interregnum poses no problems. It's like saying, if I can breathe underwater for 2 minutes, I can also breathe underwater for 2 hours.
Hi Nishant,
I like your signature. I was looking for that one myself.
Your anology is a good one and makes sense though it does not refute the argument. To refute it you would have to show where the Church has taught that there was some kind of limit to the duration. But in case anyone would try to find such a teaching, I can save you some time by saying you will find no such teaching.
We cannot put a limit it on it if the Church has not. Jesus told Peter, what if John is to remain until the end of time, what is it to you, take up your cross and follow me, or something to that effect.
Of course John did not live forever, but Christ implied that such would not be an impossibility, same to with an interrugnum, at least no Church teaching teaches the contrary.
Saint Peter has perpetual successors in the "primacy":
Primacy
(Latin primatus, primus, first).
The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12423a.htm
Primacy of the Roman See
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:
•that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
•that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point.
St. Cyprian
In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3).
Firmilian of Caesarea
Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.
Tertullian
In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.
Hippolytus
About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" — "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.
"Adversus Marcionem"
We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).
St. Irenaeus
These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jєωs or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.
Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In III:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos.
Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt.
Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, III:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome — an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus.
Those who succeed Peter in Rome succeed him also in the supreme headship
History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.
St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love".
St. Irenaeus
The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:
Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].
He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word convenire "to resort to", and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the faithful from every side (undique) resorted to Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul. The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in "Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48).
St. Victor
During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circuмstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.
Inscription of Abercius
Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See.
Tertullian
Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.
St. Cyprian
The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est).
The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was, he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Epistle 66:1).
He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place" (Epistle 66:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective primacy.
At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.
St. Dionysius of Alexandria
Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him.
Eusebius (Church History VII.9) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice and begs for his decision (gnomen), that he may not fall into error (dedios me hara sphallomai).
Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject.
Both events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St. Athanasius, "De sententia Dionysii" in P.G., XXV, 500).
Emperor Aurelian
Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles.
It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed.
In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence. Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church — of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness.
Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).
The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":
•"If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
•"If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).
A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fide infallibili.
Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another.
Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises — the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili.
According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.
The below link has the full article which some might find interesting and informative:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
The primacy is still there waiting to be filled by a validly ordained Catholic male above the age of reason. That means one who is not a public heretic.
-
You will notice in the definition it says the Pope is the "bishop" of Rome.
Ratzinger, although a valid Priest, is not a Bishop.
I believe a Priest can be validly elected, by non heretical cardinals, but if elected, it would be incuмbent on him to be validly consecrated a Bishop; by a valid Bishop of course.
Just one other thing, though somewhat incidental and peripheral to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the necessity of one to be Catholic in order to be the Head of the Catholic Church, shows what we are dealing with.
-
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
-
"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
Who would dare to say that, that V "2", the new Sacraments, the new mass and the new "code of canon law" have received the Divine ratification?
-
true, but if someone could, address some of my last posts comments and questions if at all possible with time/space permitting......
-
St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
Here we see, quite early, the necessity of submitting to the BISHOP of Rome.
If you truly believe the v2 leaders are Popes you have to submit to them.
-
still, not getting to the heart of how to elect one and from where, if the seat is vacant 54 yrs and limited number of priests/bishops considered electable-and electors....
Not trying to be dense, nor :argue:, just trying to figure out options and plans.....
good Father's quote, BTW-thanks for that :cheers:
-
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
Here I find a sincere person without animosity. This is quite refreshing.
First, before we try to figure out what to do about our situation we have to know what our situation is. Once all of good will come to grasp that a valid Pope cannot be a public heretic and cannot bind incentives to impiety on the Church then we have to figure out what to do about it.
The time of the Great Apostasy, the end times, are to be like no other times. Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ. The Mystical Body of Christ goes through a death and Resurrection as well. The faithful have a legitimate means to validly elect a valid Pope. And there is a prophecy, which I have not studied, that has been approved by some Saint that says either Elijah or Elias or both will hand pick the next valid Pope.
Who is to say God would not do such a thing?
The valid Catholic Bishops, yes the SSPX Bishops would certainly be welcome, can, I believe, elect a valid Pope. They are not going to do it though, apart from some unforeseeable miracle.
But this is all for consideration after the issue of the vacancy is settled.
Our sensus Catholicus can only take us so far:
These papal claimants:
Promulgate and enforce:
1. A heretical council
2. Invalid Sacraments
3. A mass that is an incentive to impiety
4. Heretical canon law
5. And repeatedly teach heresy and engage in heretical acts.
Therefore he cannot be Pope.
That is as far as most of us can go. But we should be able to go that far, if we have the means to study the topic. I sometimes take for granted that everyone has a computer and the time to study the teaching on the topic. Some have neither.
But those on this blog would seem to have the means and basic sensus Catholicus to do so.
Now what to do about it is in the hands of God and our imperfect by hardworking clergy.
This is a punishment that we all deserve. By "this" I mean the scarcity of a valid Mass and sacraments and the confusion that surrounds us due to the lack of clear teaching on faith and morals we need to hear but do not, all of which, is the result of our not having a Pope.
Look at it from Satan's perspective.
He cannot destroy the Church through Jesus, Mary or any of the Saints in Heaven. The only way he could destroy it, and he KNOWS all there is to know about papal infallibility and the necissity of the Pope to unify the Church, the only way he can effectively "destroy" the Church is to get to the head. He had to infiltrate the Church and have someone "elected" who would not be infallible, who would not be Pope. That is the only way he could effectively lead billions astray over the course of time. Once he got the Pope, everything else would come easy. The only way that v2, invalid sacraments, impious mass, heretical cannon law, could be "bound" on the faithful by a "Pope" would be if a false-pope could be elected and accepted as a valid Pope.
We deserve this test and trial. The Church in the 1950's was a white-washed tomb. It was shiny and bright, but infested and filled with faithful that were merely going through the motions. They did not study the faith because the figured that was the Priests problem. They figured they could just go to Mass every week, fast at the right times, and go to Confession sometimes and they could walk into Heaven. We were lethargic and Christ vomited us out of His mouth.
We are reaping the fruits of that lethargy. We were rightfully trained to be obedient to legitimate authority, for as Catholics we must. Get an imposter in there, which we all think we must obey and Satan has got us. The Church has been crucified but she will also rise. Like Job, just about everything about her has be destroyed, but like Job, she will rise more glorious than before.
The laity need not figure out how we get our next Pope, so much as they need to understand that root cause that allowed the Apostasy to be unleashed upon us which is the vacancy of the Holy See. Once we understand that we no longer have to be miffed at what the "Pope" is or is not doing and all the goings on within the "Church". It is very important for us to understand that we must submit to the Roman Pontiff and to realize why, in order to stay Catholic, we cannot submit to Father Ratzinger, is because he is not Pope.
Figuring out why God let's this happen or how it could happen, or what can be done about it comes afterwards.
Does that make any sense my friend?
-
still, not getting to the heart of how to elect one and from where, if the seat is vacant 54 yrs and limited number of priests/bishops considered electable-and electors....
Not trying to be dense, nor :argue:, just trying to figure out options and plans.....
good Father's quote, BTW-thanks for that :cheers:
What do you think of the following articles:
The below is a link to two brief articles:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/elections.html
This is the first article:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/papalelections.html
This is the second:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm2.html
-
To your first reply, yes, you make sense and are honest and clear in that....as we have had in the past anti-Popes or vacant seats, this present crisis has no precedant, so its a new "ball game" if you will with solutions,etc....
as for your second reply, need to read/reflect and study.....
i agree with your statement "The Church in the 1950's was a white-washed tomb"
many point to this time as "proof" of everything going great,etc-they list numbers, Churches and schools,etc growing.....but yes, very "on the surface" type of things......
-
still reading the articles, but I find Lucian Pulvermacher and the whole "election" thing very bizarre and rather protestant-like.
Does he have many followers? out of the SV population, how many recognize him do you estimate?
-
I like your signature. I was looking for that one myself.
Hello John. Yes, it's a statement he made on his deathbed that sums up St.Thomas, his profound humility inspite of his towering intellect, his complete confidence in the authority of the Church and his childlike faith in Christ till the end. He is truly the Prince of theologians and Doctors and a model for us lesser mortals who wish to study sacred doctrine.
Your anology is a good one and makes sense though it does not refute the argument. To refute it you would have to show where the Church has taught that there was some kind of limit to the duration. But in case anyone would try to find such a teaching, I can save you some time by saying you will find no such teaching.
Okay, but I don't accept this, because the idea that the Pope is someone non-essential to the continued propagation and growth of the Church strikes me as incorrect.
I'd say that there is indeed a natural limit to an interregnum, but it comes from another Catholic principle.
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
Some think an election could be conducted by the Roman clergy in case of necessity, since it falls to them to elect him who would be Bishop of Rome, to which Bishopric the supreme pontificate is intrinsically attached. But most of these same theologians also held that an election accepted by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy is indubitably valid and must be regarded as such, for such universal acceptance is a sufficient, though not necessary, sign of a certain and valid election. Archbishop Lefebvre himself once cited this as the common teaching of theologians. Msgr. Noort lays out a similar idea.
-
still reading the articles, but I find Lucian Pulvermacher and the whole "election" thing very bizarre and rather protestant-like.
Does he have many followers? out of the SV population, how many recognize him do you estimate?
correction, did-did not remember when posting this, but he is dead---anyone in his group claim the mantle, now?
-
still reading the articles, but I find Lucian Pulvermacher and the whole "election" thing very bizarre and rather protestant-like.
Does he have many followers? out of the SV population, how many recognize him do you estimate?
It is bizare and his followers are very few as far as I know. I never followed the goings on of that deal but only read second hand.
-
I like your signature. I was looking for that one myself.
Hello John. Yes, it's a statement he made on his deathbed that sums up St.Thomas, his profound humility inspite of his towering intellect, his complete confidence in the authority of the Church and his childlike faith in Christ till the end. He is truly the Prince of theologians and Doctors and a model for us lesser mortals who wish to study sacred doctrine.
Your anology is a good one and makes sense though it does not refute the argument. To refute it you would have to show where the Church has taught that there was some kind of limit to the duration. But in case anyone would try to find such a teaching, I can save you some time by saying you will find no such teaching.
Okay, but I don't accept this, because the idea that the Pope is someone non-essential to the continued propagation and growth of the Church strikes me as incorrect.
I'd say that there is indeed a natural limit to an interregnum, but it comes from another Catholic principle.
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
Some think an election could be conducted by the Roman clergy in case of necessity, since it falls to them to elect him who would be Bishop of Rome, to which Bishopric the supreme pontificate is intrinsically attached. But most of these same theologians also held that an election accepted by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy is indubitably valid and must be regarded as such, for such universal acceptance is a sufficient, though not necessary, sign of a certain and valid election. Archbishop Lefebvre himself once cited this as the common teaching of theologians. Msgr. Noort lays out a similar idea.
Two people with no anymosity, I'm sure there is more. Very good objections. I will be leaving and may not post until Monday. I can only say not that the Pope is indeed essential and that is why we are in this mess.
Thanks for helping my sharpen my antlers, I will try to answer respond to this when I get back.
God bless, Mary keep,
John
-
perhaps, in wake of his death and with internet, they coupd do election by poll or e-vote :rolleyes:
that said, tongue-cheek, wonder what tey are doing now......
Lane has some rather good, clear points, contra-Pulvermacher
-
What do you gentlement think of the following article? Please elaborate:
http://www.sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html
Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See
By John Daly. Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.
For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:
that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).
Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:
Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.
Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.
He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.
The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circuмstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.
At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.
In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.
Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):
"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."
Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.
We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):
"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".
Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):
"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."
This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:
"The Council assembled in 1414...
"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.
And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)
-
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
Being a Divine Institution - what limits GOD in providing a solution? I can think of several unpleasant scenarios in which this is accomplished.
At the time of Noah - GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.
In the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah , GOD came up with a solution for Mass Infidelity.
But before I seem bloodthirsty , GOD likewise had a solution for Nineveh , but the people heeded his warning and averted their own demise.
Today , when the President of the United States can publicly come right out and say he supports two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs marrying one another , are we to assume GOD is merely looking the other way and OK with it?
I have a very deep and sad feeling that the solution that none of us wants to talk about or think about is more than plausible.
We live in the age of Nuclear Proliferation.
We live in the age of Mass Hedonistic , Materialistic , and Atheistic glorification, and the sins and blasphemies inherent to these beliefs and yet , with hardly any large outcry by the Masses to defend the Morality of GOD and for the culprits to cease in their grave offenses. For all intents and purposes , this amounts to consent on our part.
Reading the Prophesies for the 3 days of darkness etc , I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist , but I see plausibility for a mass chastisement being the prime mover behind a return to Traditional Catholicism - where GOD makes it abundantly clear to those who survive what is and isn't acceptable and who his New Orthodox Vicar is.
And BTW , I do hope I am wrong about all of this.
Pax
-
So Belloc, Nichant, have we settled the question, is it still up in the air, or are a hundred percent sure that there is a limit to the length of interregnums?
-
I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.
Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.
Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.
-
I recognise Pope Gregory XVII and that a successor was most likely elected at his death in 1989. IF the Chair of Peter is vacant, it has only been about 20 yrs at the most.
-
I've read Fr.Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.
Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.
Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.
I just wrote a lenghty response to you and deleted it by mistake :fryingpan:
I will just say, I like that you stay on the subject and respond logically. It is very refreshing. But I am rather frustrated at myself right now. Perhaps I'll come back again and try it all over again some other time.
-
true, but if someone could, address some of my last posts comments and questions if at all possible with time/space permitting......
Okay.........
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
Okay...........
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
Huh? The longer [it] goes on ..., one will be left ... and, who is electable ...?
Sorry, you're not making any sense now.
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, [who?] have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
Some of us have not this, the boggle, in the SV opinion?
I would like to address your post but it's not intelligible.
-
I've read Fr. Reilly's writings earlier and I agree with him for the most part.
Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.
The following is a good example of why laymen should not try to practice being
a theologian:
Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now. But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease, which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.
I just wrote a [lengthy] response to you and deleted it by mistake :fryingpan:
I will just say, I like that you stay on the subject and respond logically. It is very refreshing. But I am rather frustrated at myself right now. Perhaps I'll come back again and try it all over again some other time.
Sometimes that happens to me, so to avoid the problem, I have found that by
typing into another program (I use Notepad because it's lightweight and uses no
RAM to speak of) I can then save and update my words, and then when I'm
ready, just paste them into the REPLY box here. It takes a few extra steps but it
saves a lot of grief. It also helps to see the words in three different views so then
I can find typos or missing words, etc., more easily before hitting "Reply."
-
I just wish to say to Lover of Truth, you explain the crisis of the Church so thoroughly and enjoy reading your posts! The more simple the explaining the easier it is to grasp it. I don't know how many people realize that the church is going to her crucifixion and will resurrect. Most of us know enough of the quotes of Christ. We just forget and once it is brought to our attention, the light comes on! Thank you again for taking time to write good posts.
-
true, but if someone could, address some of my last posts comments and questions if at all possible with time/space permitting......
Okay.........
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
Okay...........
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
Huh? The longer [it] goes on ..., one will be left ... and, who is electable ...?
Sorry, you're not making any sense now.
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, [who?] have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
Some of us have not this, the boggle, in the SV opinion?
I would like to address your post but it's not intelligible.
was clear enough to me, but not to you, sooooo....gues it goes nowhere then......
lets say since 1958 chair is empty, lets say crisis continues even longer then 54 yrs, say to 2020, now 62 yrs of a vacant chair.......
who then can be elected as Pope, as most clergyare dead that are validly elected?
or do we draw from the 4 bishops of SSPX, plus any Sede priests/Bishops???
fairly clear questions.....I thought.....
-
So Belloc, Nichant, have we settled the question, is it still up in the air, or are a hundred percent sure that there is a limit to the length of interregnums?
in another thread, yes, you explained your views and positions well.......
thank you!! :applause:
-
Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.
-
Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.
I think the argument really boils down to a simple Truth. We are in Uncharted Waters. In my view , no matter which theory one wants to believe - the simple truth is - nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Catholic Church before. For those who say B 16 et al are legitimate Popes = There have never been Popes who have deviatd from sound Catholic Doctrine and who have blatently contradicted their predesessors like these last 5 have. For the Sedevacantist - There has never been an interregnum that lasted this long with no end in sight not to mention the Visibility issue of the Holy Roman Pontiff.
So what do we do as Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Holy Mother the Church. In eithr case Avoiding these Popes / False Popes seems to be the Prudent course of action.
Pax
-
Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.
to me, a non-SV, 50 yrs is unprecedented, but by no means absurd.
all in all, one struggles to do right.......for me, do not really think about Pope too much........stick to pre-1962 teachings and practices best as possible...the NO types too Papalidolotry, hang on his every word and jump on bandwagon of statements, common for the K of C types too.....
-
Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.
Each alternative obviously poses its own significant problems, but as to which is more absurd, or rather which is less certain, I think it is definitely the assertion that these Popes have certainly lost their office by virtue of their actions. In light of the theological certitude that such an eventuality continuing on for now 54 years appears at odds with certain essential constitutive elements of the Church, I'd say we might need to re-evaluate that judgment which may at one time have seemed reasonable. Cardinal Billot's evaluation of Savanarola's arguments may be helpful.
Savanarola was an intelligent man, he was no fool. And he was thoroughly convinced, of Pope Alexander VI that "the man is not a Christian - he does not even believe in any longer that there is a God". Had the Pope lost his office? But Cardinal Billot in describing the matter merely applied some generally accepted principles about universal acceptance and said that Pope Alexander VI undoubtedly was the Pope and most later ecclesiastical writers agree with him.
To me, that shows which is more certain.
Edit: Oh, and Roscoe, I think sede-impedism is in some respects a more powerful theory than sede vacantism. But, as for Cardinal Siri, by all accounts he accepted the Council, the new Mass and accorded public veneration to the Popes, while not supporting any sedevacantist movement.
-
If one assumes that the SV position is correct-no valid Pope since 1958, the thing that sticks out is this:
The longer this crisis goes on and the seat is vacant, one will be left to elect and, who is electable the longer this goes on?
What valid priests are left-do they elect out of their ranks, like electing a new abbot? who then could consecrate said man a Bishop?
How does the vetting go, to insure said man is sound and electable?
(and yes, have heard about the Angelica Pope to come, Sts. Peter and Paul flashing light,etc)
This is the boggle some of us have not in the SV opinion...
First of all, not all sedevacantists assume that the vacancy began in 1958. The election of John XXIII is a convenient point in time because the "changes in the Church" seem to be able to be traced to this event. However, until Benedict 16, all of the men elected were undoubtedly valid bishops and could have been popes. I'm not going to get into detailed discussions as to whether they ever validly assumed the papacy but each (other than John Paul 1) made their heresy and/or apostasy so clearly manifest and public at some time that no one (even you) would have described a person who did these things as a "Catholic" unless he were thought to be pope.
Secondly, when a Catholic assumes the bishopric of Rome, if any one of the consecrators is a traditional Catholic bishop, his consecration will be valid. At some point in time we will have a new pope, though it will take some time before he is universally accepted.
What, I think, will be the greatest sign that a true and valid Catholic bishop has assumed the papacy will be that traditional Catholics begin to accept him while the Novus Ordo catholics and, most especially bishops, go into schism.
As I said, the election of a true pope will be a tumultuous time for the Church. I would not be surprised if he's only able to remain in the Vatican because the Swiss Guards protects him. I would not be surprised if nearly all the cardinals declare that they made a mistake and elect an anti-pope as happened once before when the pope returned to Rome.
Whatever happens, it will not be something that only a few people can discern.
-
Good point, most SV point to 1958=last valid Pope........some accept John 23rd, some might go later, has seen someone argue that Paul VI validly elected, then lost seat somewhere......
some good reasonable points
-
Absurd as an interregnum of fifty years (or thereabouts) may be to Nishant, to my mind it is far more absurd -- and clearly contrary to the Will of Christ -- that, for that same period, the Church should have been governed by a succession of supposed popes who, by their words and deeds, have contributed to the suppression of the Church’s institutions and the progressive elimination of the Catholic faith.
Each alternative obviously poses its own significant problems, but as to which is more absurd, or rather which is less certain, I think it is definitely the assertion that these Popes have certainly lost their office by virtue of their actions. In light of the theological certitude that such an eventuality continuing on for now 54 years appears at odds with certain essential constitutive elements of the Church, I'd say we might need to re-evaluate that judgment which may at one time have seemed reasonable. Cardinal Billot's evaluation of Savanarola's arguments may be helpful.
Savanarola was an intelligent man, he was no fool. And he was thoroughly convinced, of Pope Alexander VI that "the man is not a Christian - he does not even believe in any longer that there is a God". Had the Pope lost his office? But Cardinal Billot in describing the matter merely applied some generally accepted principles about universal acceptance and said that Pope Alexander VI undoubtedly was the Pope and most later ecclesiastical writers agree with him.
To me, that shows which is more certain.
Edit: Oh, and Roscoe, I think sede-impedism is in some respects a more powerful theory than sede vacantism. But, as for Cardinal Siri, by all accounts he accepted the Council, the new Mass and accorded public veneration to the Popes, while not supporting any sedevacantist movement.
Siri has been accused of accepting V2 and celebrating the NO.....something to weed out there......
Also, accepting the election and stepping down, for whatever reason, is a sticking point with me. Siri might have been elected, true enough, but he stepepd down, reason not as important as the step-down......certainly to me being elected does not automatically=Pope, hence after his step down, that was that.....refused to be crowned,etc....seems somewhere in history, some one was elected and was not formally installed prior to death, seems like that person is listed as non-Pope......could be wrong..
-
Also, accepting the election and stepping down, for whatever reason, is a sticking point with me. Siri might have been elected, true enough, but he stepepd down, reason not as important as the step-down...
This has always been my objection to the so-called "Siri thesis" as well. It just doesn't make sense that he could be considered the pope when he publicly accepted the election of someone else.
-
I would have to agree. I suppose the Siri Thesis is a possibility, but I have a difficult time accepting the notion that man could be elected Pope, then turn around and deny his own election, submit to the election of someone else, and then celebrate the Novus Ordo.
-
Agreed. A couple of tidbits about Cardinal Siri.
Describing Pope John Paul II, in 1985,
"He is the Vicar of Christ. The words of the Gospel are applied to John Paul II since the moment of his election, just as they were to Peter ... "
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_149_Siri-JPII.html
And what should be even more unnerving to the dogmatic Siri-ites, as late as 1988,
"On June 22 of that year, when Lefebvre announced his intention to ordain four bishops, the Genoese cardinal wrote to Lefebvre: "Monsignor, I beseech you on my knees not to break from the Church! You have been an apostle, a bishop, you must remain in your place. At our age we are at the door of eternity. Think! I am always waiting for you, here in the Church and later in Paradise"
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/02/cardinal-siri-and-archbishop-marcel.html
Assuredly, these are not the words of a man who ever believed himself Pope. If Cardinal Siri really was who his followers think he was, he would have above all confided in Archbishop Lefebvre the truth. Who else, and who better, if that was the reality and that his intention? But no, it clearly was not.
-
Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question.
I WISH ALL PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SURE ABOUT SV WERE AS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST ABOUT THINGS AS YOU ARE NICHANT. IT IS QUITE REFRESHING TO DISCUSS THE INSANITY OF OUR TIMES WITH ONE WHO STICKS TO THE TOPIC AND GIVES A REASON FOR HIS ASSERTIONS.
I WILL WRITE IN CAPS TO DISTINGUIS YOU FROM ME.
Yes, that is the typical argument, but it can be reduced to absurdity in various ways, which I won't enter into now.
YOU COULDN’T ENTER WOULDN’T ENTER INTO IT WHEN YOU POSTED IT, BUT CAN YOU ENTER INTO IT NOW, OR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE?
But what I'll say is the proof of a natural limit to an interregnum comes from Catholic doctrine, implied in Pope Leo XIII's teaching and laid out in Pope Pius XII's teaching as well is that Bishops receive their episcopal office and the ordinary power of jurisdiction along with it not in virtue of their consecration alone, nor directly from Christ, but rather immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET. (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?) BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS TO BE PROVEN, DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE THE CHURCH DISAPPEAR? THE VALID BISHIPS AND PRIESTS SEEM VISIBLE TO ME
This affects the nature of episcopal consecrations during an interregnum and deprives those thus consecrated of an essential power which would otherwise be proper to them. If the Church were thus to continue in this way for too long a time, it is evident, that the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction would cease,
DO YOU CLAIM THE N.O. BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION? THIS WOULD MEAN THAT YOU BELIEVE THE NO CONSECRATIONS TO BE VALID OR THAT YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY. AND EVEN THEN, SUPPOSE ONE WAS VALIDLY CONSECRATED IN 1968 AT THE AGE OF 40 WHICH PUT HIM AT 84. HOW MANY 84 PLUS YEAR-OLD BISHOPS ARE NOT HERETICS? WHAT VALID 84 YEAR-OLD PLUS BISHOP EXISTS THAT DOES NOT THINK RATZINGER IS ORTHODOX. IF ONE EXISTS WHO KNOWS THE NEW MASS IS INVALID WHY IS HE NOT MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN AND PROVIDING US WITH SACRAMENTS AND CONSECRATING BISHOPS FOR THE TRUE CHURCH? THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO MAKE HIM LESS VISIBLE THAN OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS. HOW MANY MORE YEARS DO WE HAVE TO INSIST THAT THERE IS A VALID BISHOP, WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION, THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO POINT OUT (DO RETIRED BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?) IN EXISTENCE? DOES THIS NOT BECOME LESS AND LESS FEASIBLE THAN A LONG VACANCY AS THE YEARS PASS?
which again reflects God's most wise design in constituting His Church with the person not just the empty office of the Pope essential for said transmission. But jurisdiction is a requirement of Apostolicity, and it is of divine Faith that the Catholic Church is Apostolic and cannot cease to be so, as she would have, if there were no orthodox Catholic Bishop in the world possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Hence the notion of an indefinitely long interregnum is assuredly incorrect, and would probably merit some censure, most likely at least "erroneous in theology" for being the contrary of a dogmatic fact.
CAN YOU BACK THESE ASSERTIONS WITH PROOF FROM AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES?
GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD. WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. THEREFORE. . .
BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS. BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE. THEREFORE. . .
FURTHER, I ARGUE THAT NOWHERE HAS THE CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE LENGTH OF AN INTERREGNUM, AND ALL ADMIT THAT WE HAVE HAD WELL OVER 200 INTERREGNUMS. YOU WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TEACHING [OF NO LONG INTERREGNUM] IS IMPLIED, BUT THE TEACHING THAT A HERETIC CANNOT BE POPE IS MORE THAN IMPLIED, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY TAUGHT AND SITS THERE AS DIVINE LAW WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED OR PROVEN FALSE. SO WHEN STUCK WITH A “CHOICE” BETWEEN ONE OR THE OTHER DO WE GO WITH THE IMPLIED TEACHING OR THE VERIFIABLE FACT?
GOD DEPRIVED THE JєωS ACCESS TO THEIR TEMPLE FOR 500 YEARS. HE HAS DEPRIVED MOST OF THE WORLD OF A TRUE MASS, SACRAMENTS FOR 50. WOULD YOU TRULY INSIST THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW AN INTERREGNUM OF THE SAME LENGTH OR LONGER? THE QUESTION SEEMS TO HAVE THE ANSWER, AS THERE BEING NO TRUE MASS OR SACRAMENTS FOR ALL THIS TIME COULD ONLY MEAN WE HAVE NOT HAD A TRUE POPE ALL THIS TIME. BUT THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL WHO ADMIT THE ABOVE FACTS REGARDING THE COUNCIL, SACRAMENTS, MASS, CANON LAW, CATECHISM, TEACHINGS AND HERETICAL ACTS OF THE CONCILIAR LEADERS.
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR CHRIST TO GO TO THE TROUBLE OF BUILDING HIS CHURCH ON THE PAPACY IF ALL THE ABOVE CAN HAPPEN AND BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF VALID POPE WHO WAS GARUNTEED TO BE INFALLIBLE AND WHOSE CHURCH IS INDEFECTABLE AND IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND GUARD THE SACRAMENTS AND LITURGY FROM CORRUPTION. AGAINST ALL THIS EVIDENCE IT WOULD SEEM THE ARGUMENT THAT GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH A LONG INTERREGNUM SEEMS WEAK AT BEST.
BUT AT LEAST YOU TRY TO BACK THE NO LONG INTERRUGNUM ASSERTION WITH THE REASON OF ORDINARY JURISDICTION SOMEHOW BEING NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH’S VISIBILITY.
PERHAPS WE SHOULD OPEN A THREAD ON WHETHER ORDINARY JURISDICTION IS IN FACT NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH TO ACTUALLY EXIST.
THIS WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT THE TRUE BISHOPS DO NOT HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION WHICH IS A THREAD IN ITSELF.
REGARDING SIRI: I KNOW A BIG PROMOTER OF THE THEORY HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. I USED TO BELIEVE IT TO BE HIGHLY PROBABLE. AFTERALL, FROM SATAN’S AND THE FREE-MASONS POINT OF VIEW, BOTH OF WHOM KNOW THAT THE POPE TRULY IS INFALLIBLE WHEN CATHOLIC AND VALIDLY ELEICTED, IF THEY COULD GET AN INVALIDLY “ELECTED” GUY IN HE WOULDN’T BE INFALLIBLE AND COULD PROMOTE THE SATANIC/FREEMASONIC AGENDA OF NOT CONDEMNING COMMUNISM, SQASHING OUR LADY’S PLAN TO HELP US AVOID THE GREAT APOSTACY AND STOPPING THE ERRORS OF RUSSIA, ALL BUT ABOLISH THE ORDINARY MEANS OF SANCTIFYING GRACE OF ENTERING THE WORLD THROUGH VALID SACRAMENTS ADMINSTERED BY VALID BISHOPS AND PRIESTS AND ASSURE US THAT EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN AS THEY ARE LEADING US TO JOIN SATAN IN THE FREEMASONS IN HELL. IT WAS TRIED WITH THE ELECTION OF PIUS X. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY TRY IT AGAIN. I JUST MAINTAIN THAT THEIR SUCCESS IN DOING THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MIGHT READ. ADDITTIONALLY I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FAULTY FOR ONE TO DEFEND THE SV REALITY ON SUCH AN UNPROVABLE THING, BUT SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A COMPLIMENTARY THEORY AT BEST. THE FACT OF OUR SITUATION NEEDS TO BE PROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THOSE OF GOOD WILL FIRST; SO ALL OF US OF GOOD WILL CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THAT SOMETHING, I BELIEVE WOULD BE TO ELECT A VALID POPE WITH THE VALID CLERGY PUTTING THE ELECTION TOGETHER. OF COURSE THIS WOULD MEAN THE VALID [SV] CLERGY ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD WOULD THINK OF THEM IF THEY DID THIS.
I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THAT VACANCY ACTUALLY MAY HAVE ENDED IN 1964 WHEN MONTINI APPROVED THE NEW TEACHING THAT THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST IS NOT ONE AND THE SAME AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT THAT IT SUBSISTS IN (AND OUTSIDE OF) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THOUGH IMPERFECTLY OUTSIDE IT. THIS IS HERESY. “APPROVED” IN A “COUNCIL”. THE DOcuмENTS, APPROVED AFTER LUMEN GENTIUM ARE ALSO CLEARLY HERETICAL. I SAY THIS WHILE PERSONALLY FAVORING THE IDEA THAT JOHN 23 WAS NOT VALID BASED ON ALL THE cuмULITIVE THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT HIM AND HIS “PAPACY” NOW, SUCH AS HIS BEING SUSPECTED OF MODERNISM AND BEING A FREE-MASON AND BEING EXTOLLED BY THE FREE-MASONS. THE LITURGICAL CHANGES UNDER HIM WERE NOT IN HIS FAVOR, NOR WAS THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO REVEAL THE THIRD SECRET.
I HOPE THIS LONG LARGE-CAPPED RESPONSE DOES NOT APPEAR DISRESPECTFUL IN ANYWAY.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE MISREPRESENTED YOUR THOUGHTS IN ANY WAY AND CLARIFY. ALSO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH ANY OR ALL THAT I SAY ABOVE OR SHOW WHERE MY ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK OR INCORRECT. I WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT I KNOW NO IF I HAD NOT LISTENED TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IN THE PAST. I AM ALL EARS TO THE CHARITABLE WHO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION RESPECTFULLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I AM ALL EARS TO THE UNCHARITABLE WHO STILL MAINTAIN LOGIC IN THEIR ARGUMENTATION AS WELL, BUT THIS IS MORE DIFFICULT. THIS IS WHY I AM PLEASED TO BE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND,
AND MARY KEEP,
JOHN
-
John,
I WILL WRITE IN CAPS TO DISTINGUIS YOU FROM ME.
Ok.
There is one another point I have not mentioned yet. It's some thing theologians commonly teach, that given the universal acceptance of a particular person as Pope, all antecedent precluding conditions, at least as of that moment, are presumed not to exist.
THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET. (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?)
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. But if we are going to say the Pope and all the Bishops have lost their office, that is where the problem begins in my opinion.
Anyway, you asked for some sources. Canon 147 of the Code of Canon law mentions that episcopal office can only be granted by the competent authority.
Mystici Corporis Christi reinforces the point by teaching that episcopal consecration cannot give the power of ordinary jurisdiction by itself, but that this is only received immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
Most theologians and clergy know and recognize this, both today and earlier. I believe Msgr.Fenton and others have written about it.
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.
DO YOU CLAIM THE N.O. BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?
It suffices that the Pope not have lost his office for jurisdiction to continue to be transmitted. But yes, while many episcopal sees are probably vacant due to heresy, I do believe the new rite is valid.
YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY.
This, I believe, is the so-called "Bishop in the woods" thesis of John Lane and others. It has its own attendant problems, but you see, no one would need to hypothesise such a thing if all did not agree that there absolutely had to be at least one Bishop left in the world with ordinary jurisdiction. The recognition that this must be the case is why we ought, in my opinion, not to be too quick to conclude with absolute certainty that every such and such a person has definitely lost his office, for such conclusions, if treated as proved, would prove too much.
AND EVEN THEN, SUPPOSE ONE WAS VALIDLY CONSECRATED IN 1968 AT THE AGE OF 40 WHICH PUT HIM AT 84. HOW MANY 84 PLUS YEAR-OLD BISHOPS ARE NOT HERETICS? WHAT VALID 84 YEAR-OLD PLUS BISHOP EXISTS THAT DOES NOT THINK RATZINGER IS ORTHODOX. IF ONE EXISTS WHO KNOWS THE NEW MASS IS INVALID WHY IS HE NOT MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN AND PROVIDING US WITH SACRAMENTS AND CONSECRATING BISHOPS FOR THE TRUE CHURCH?
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO MAKE HIM LESS VISIBLE THAN OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS. HOW MANY MORE YEARS DO WE HAVE TO INSIST THAT THERE IS A VALID BISHOP, WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION, THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO POINT OUT (DO RETIRED BISHOPS HAVE ORDINARY JURISDICTION?) IN EXISTENCE? DOES THIS NOT BECOME LESS AND LESS FEASIBLE THAN A LONG VACANCY AS THE YEARS PASS?
Good questions. What happens when that happens is I suppose that John Lane and those who agree with him will have to find a new theory. :) I agree, for some of the reasons you've raised and some others, this idea has some holes in it, it would seem.
GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD. WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?
It is true, but as the examples of history show, including from Holy Writ, it pleases Divine Justice to punish His people by sending unworthy shepherds to them. The Church has no remedy for the actions of a vicious Pope, even one whose dubious actions may cause immense harm and scandal to the Church, except of course for the weapon of prayer. Msgr.Journet gives an excellent description of this, I believe Hobbledehoy pasted the work in another topic.
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. THEREFORE. . .
BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS. BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE. THEREFORE. . .
But Savanarola was equally convinced "with all certitude" that Pope Alexander VI was "not Pope and cannot in any way be". This is why I believe, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in his dealing with the Popes, that the more prudent course of action even in the face of apparent heresy is that followed by St.Athanasius with Pope Liberius, St.Maximus with Pope Honorius, Cardinal Orsini with Pope John XXII, to prescind from any judgment of persons whatsoever even one that may seem reasonable and stick to what is absolutely certain in terms of the faith, which no authority in heaven or on earth can compel us to change.
I am stopping my response here at this point. I'll answer anything else you may want me to at a later time.
I AM PLEASED TO BE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
Likewise, John. God bless you.
-
Nishant,
I'm about to read your response, but I want to point out right away, that the style of your response is better than mine as your quotes in the white of me and writing in normal case has a better look to it than my responding in caps for distinguishment.
-
Nishant,
You put forth very good questions in a Catholic spirit. I would urge you to read some of the recent threads on the Bellarmine Forums which answer some of the points you brought up. If you do not think the answers adequate, maybe consider joining and put forth these questions.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/index.php
-
There is one another point I have not mentioned yet. It's some thing theologians commonly teach, that given the universal acceptance of a particular person as Pope, all antecedent precluding conditions, at least as of that moment, are presumed not to exist.
"At least as of that moment" I have heard that. But I am not sure how that can change the objective reality that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office.
THE JURISDICTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED YET. (THE MAJORITY SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CATHOLIC [TRADITIONAL] BISHOPS ONLY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN?)
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.
Agreed.
This is also true with the SV Bishops. But I have not read a good explanation on this from anyone.
On the practical and pastoral level, supplied jurisdiction more than suffices
.
Suffices for visibility only or also for apostolicity? If not apostolicity, why not? Are they not still valid successors of the Apostles?
But if we are going to say the Pope and all the Bishops have lost their office, that is where the problem begins in my opinion.
How so? Is your response that we lack Apostolicity in the traditional ranks? Can you please elaborate?
Anyway, you asked for some sources. Canon 147 of the Code of Canon law mentions that episcopal office can only be granted by the competent authority.
This is correct (in ordinary circuмstances?) Is there an exception to that in extraordinary circuмstances?
Mystici Corporis Christi reinforces the point by teaching that episcopal consecration cannot give the power of ordinary jurisdiction by itself, but that this is only received immediately from the Supreme Pontiff.
I have not double checked for myself but I do not doubt the veracity of that statement. But I'll mention again that I am not sure if that is the case in extraordinary times such as ours. Is the claim based on intrinsic necessity? Is it an unchangeable discipline?
Most theologians and clergy know and recognize this, both today and earlier. I believe Msgr.Fenton and others have written about it.
Correct. And this, I believe helps clarify the jurisdiction question [in normal times?] In fact I believe Msgr. Fenton was basing his teaching on Mystici Corporis Christi.
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.
This brings me to the question of whether or not the traditional Bishops continue the apostolicity of the Church as things currently stand. If not, why not? Because they do not have ordinary jurisdiction? If that point is granted, though it is not a point which I am willing to concede yet, are not the traditional bishops valid successors of the Apostles and does that not count for apostolicity?
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.
I cannot grant you that. I do admit that is the vast majority view no. Though it would be interesting to know Fenton's views were he still alive today, or Pius V or X for that matter. I will also add the obvious, that the traditional Bishops are not a schismatic sect.
But it is of divine faith that the Catholic Church must be Apostolic.
MOST READILY AGREED! :-)
It suffices that the Pope not have lost his office for jurisdiction to continue to be transmitted.
Just to make sure. Do you insist that a valid Pope must hold office legitimately in order for ordinary jurisdiction to be transmitted? Has this been the case during long interregnums in the past and during times of great persecution and when corresponding great distances was difficult if not impossible. I believe bishops, in the past, during the history of the Church, before v"2", have consecrated Bishops, not against the expressed wish of the Pope, but because they could not communicate with him, and needed to continue the Church in their area. That is a guess. Please tell me if I am wrong.
But yes, while many episcopal sees are probably vacant due to heresy, I do believe the new rite is valid.
Regarding the new rite being valid, I would disagree. But I suppose that is another thread. Many theologians teach that merely messing with the rite causes doubt. And they also teach a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. And as strong as that teaching is, it is the weakest of arguments agains the validity of the new rite. We all should agree that they are at least doubtul, and therefore to be avoided. Yet we depend on it for the visibility and apostilicity of the Church?
Quote:
YOU HOLD TO THAT THERE MUST BE A 90+ YEAR-OLD VALIDLY CONSECRATED NONE-HERETIC BISHOP SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE DIFFICULT TO HANG YOUR HAT ONTO THAN A LONG-TERM VACANCY.
This, I believe, is the so-called "Bishop in the woods" thesis of John Lane and others.
I don't like his view on this either. But I am also not ready to admit that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction yet. Which does not give me any points in this debate I admit. But I am also not ready to admit that the visibility and apostolicity of the Church does not exist in the traditional bishops.
It has its own attendant problems, but you see, no one would need to hypothesise such a thing if all did not agree that there absolutely had to be at least one Bishop left in the world with ordinary jurisdiction.
The thought of hypothesising about such things seems burdensome and disagreeable to me as well. Additionally, how visible is the Bishop that no one can see?
The recognition that this must be the case is why we ought, in my opinion, not to be too quick to conclude with absolute certainty that every such and such a person has definitely lost his office, for such conclusions, if treated as proved, would prove too much.
Again I would disagree for now, as I believe, until the contary is proven, that our traditional bishops are both visible and apostolic.
Quote:
GOD ALSO MOST WISELY INSTITUTED A PAPACY WHOSE VALID CLAIMANTS WILL NOT ERR OR GIVE THE FAITHFUL STONES WHEN THEY ASK FOR BREAD. WHICH SEEMS MORE FEASIBLE, HERETICAL POPES THAT LEAD US TO HELL, OR A LONG VACANCY?
It is true, but as the examples of history show, including from Holy Writ, it pleases Divine Justice to punish His people by sending unworthy shepherds to them. The Church has no remedy for the actions of a vicious Pope, even one whose dubious actions may cause immense harm and scandal to the Church, except of course for the weapon of prayer. Msgr.Journet gives an excellent description of this, I believe Hobbledehoy pasted the work in another topic.
I believe the Church may infact have a remedy. If the masses who call themselves Catholic, knew or cared what heresy was, I believe a declaration on the fact of the vacancy could be made and a valid Pope elected. But the vast majority of all who call themselves Catholic, if they cared at all, would think it crazy to even suggest that Ratzinger teaches heresy and has done so for his entire clerical life. So we sit here twisting in the wind fighting each other (not me and you) bringing God's Just Judgments on our heads. I do wish the masses could be educated on Catholic Truth and act accordingly. But prayer, fasting, the brown scapular, the miraculous medal and a good life well spent certainly would not hurt.
Quote:
AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE THE WEAKEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR ASSERTIONS, GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT THE MORE CERTAIN TEACHING, WHICH NO ONE CAN LEGITIMATELY DENY, IS THAT A PUBLIC HERETIC CANNOT HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, BUT PUBLIC HERETICS HAVE CLAIMED TO HOLD ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. THEREFORE. . .
BUT EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT ABOVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS AS STRONG AS IS NEEDED, IS THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT GIVE US THE NEW MASS, FAULTY SACRAMENTS, A HERETICAL CODE OF CANON LAW, A HERETICAL COUNCIL, FALSE SAINTS AND A WEAKENED EXORCISM, A HERETICAL CATECHISM, AND ALL BE APPROVED BY MEN WHOSE LIFE IS AN ENDLESS LIST OF HERETICAL TEACHINGS AND ACTIONS. BUT THE PURPORTED POPES OF THE PAST 50 YEARS HAVE DONE ALL OF THE ABOVE. THEREFORE. . .
But Savanarola was equally convinced "with all certitude" that Pope Alexander VI was "not Pope and cannot in any way be".
Do we know for absolute certain that Alexader VI was not Pope. As certain as the validity of canonized Saints before V"2"? Or is this merely an opinion of is held by the majority.
Also, it would seem that Savanarola, who I know nothing about, rightly taught that a public heretic could not legitimately hold office. And the counter to his thought was not that a public heretic could legitimately hold office, but that he was not in fact a public heretic who insisted on his heres,y once corrected, if he was a public heretic at all.
This is why I believe, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in his dealing with the Popes, that the more prudent course of action even in the face of apparent heresy is that followed by St.Athanasius with Pope Liberius, St.Maximus with Pope Honorius, Cardinal Orsini with Pope John XXII, to prescind from any judgment of persons whatsoever even one that may seem reasonable and stick to what is absolutely certain in terms of the faith, which no authority in heaven or on earth can compel us to change.
This is a good strong finish by you with apparrent merit. But my above quote fits here as well. I am not sure that is "de fide" or whatever other theological term that would apply that we would be bound to accept that all the above named Popes were in fact valid Popes during the entirity of their Pontificats. But supposing that they were, which I must grant is possible and even probable, the defense of their legitimacy was not that pertinacious public heretics could legitimately hold office but that they were in fact NOT pertinacious public heretics, at least according to the majority view who hold that they were in fact valid Popes during the entirety of their pontificate.
Your argument would only have strong merit if those corrected for holding the minority opinion were corrected for holding that a public heretic cannot be Pope rather than being corrected for insisting that he was in fact a public heretic.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Lastly, I still maintain, that the Divine Law, that a public heretic cannot be Pope, is more certain than the objection your bring up that a long interregnum is not possible.
-
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 . . .
-
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):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3307.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3308.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3309.jpg)
-
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):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3310.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3311.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3312.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3313.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3314.jpg)
-
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):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3307.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3308.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3309.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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.
The same thing His Holiness Pope Pius the XII Said
Pius XII, discourse of 23 March 1949 to the preachers and parish priests of Rome:
"In the formidable religious controversies of which we are the witnesses, we can truly count only on those faithful who pray and who strive, even at the cost of great self-denial, to conform their lives to the divine law. All the rest offer themselves unprotected to the blows of the enemy".
The Supreme Law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls. That Supreme Law supercedes legalism. The Church Supplies Jurisdiction. That is the Essence of Epikea. Now in order for your position to have merit - you would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that B 16 is a legitimate Holy Roman Pontiff which in light of his numerous defections from the Faith is suspect at best and at worst fully Heretical and his universality is likewise in question since even the Novus Ordo liberals ignore his authority and operate as if there is no Lawful Authority , nor do the SSPX follow his directives - so how can he claim universal acceptance.
Therefore , if indeed we are in a period of Interregnum which many believe we are - ecclesiastic authority is suspect , and the authorities you cite all presuppose Lawful and Legitimate Authority to be in place and the fulcrum for your stance.
So the obvious dilemma being - have the Gates of Hell prevailed in just such a scenario? Obviously not because we have the Supreme Law of the Church - we have Holy Orders and we have Apostolic Succession - and so long as we have that - we have legitimate jurisdiction under the Supreme Law of the Church.
The Gates of Hell are equated to the Tongues of Heretics by at least 2 Popes and St Thomas Aquinas as well. Are we to assume that the Jurisdiction you cite may be emanating from the Gates of Hell itself - and that is the Legitimate Authority you cite? Hardly the same as Msgr Van Noort envisioned when he wrote that.
In any event - Archbishop Thuc had Papal Approval to Consecrate Bishops from Pope Pius the XII which was never recinded and made it abundantly clear why he was doing it.
How does the Catholic Church appear today as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II reigns as “Pope,” surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and receive Holy Communion.
But in the sight of God, how does today’s Church appear? Are the Masses — both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundays — pleasing to God? By no means, because that Mass is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants — therefore it is displeasing to God and invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of St. Pius V, which is offered by few priests and bishops, among whom I count myself.
Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that priesthood which is pleasing to God.
Besides this “Mass,” which does not please God, there are many other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and of Extreme Unction.
Moreover, the “priests” now hold to:
1) modernism;
2) false ecuмenism
3) the adoration [or cult] of man;
4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever;
5) the unwillingness to condemn heresies and to expel the heretics.
Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.
February 25, 1982
Munich
+Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc
Archbishop
The Consecration of Bishops During Interregna
by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
The purpose of this article is to present objective evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy of the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops during this time of an extended interregnum (vacancy of the Holy See) which has occurred since the spiritual devastation caused by the Second Vatican Council. The evidence presented will show the historical precedent for such episcopal consecrations, the distinction between divine law and ecclesiastical law in this realm, and the historical precedent of supplied jurisdiction granted to such bishops.
I. Historical Precedent
During the interregnum from the death of Pope Clement IV on November 29, 1268, to the election of Blessed Gregory X on September 1, 1271, twenty-one vacancies occurred in various dioceses. During this time bishops were consecrated without papal mandate to fill these vacancies because of the spiritual necessity of the faithful and the impossibility of having recourse to the Holy See.
According to the docuмent “Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi” by Fr. Conrad Eubel, O.F.M., S.T.D., printed in 1913, the following bishops were elected and consecrated during the period of the above-mentioned vacancy.
Diocese of Avranches, France
Radulfus de Thieville
Consecrated November 1269
Diocese of Aleria, Corsica
Nicolaus Forteguerra
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Antivari, Greece
Caspar Adam O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Auxerre, France,
Erardus de Lesinnes
Consecrated in January 1271
Diocese of Chalons sur Saorie, France
Potius de Sissey
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Cagli, Italy,
Jacobus
Consecrated September 8, 1270
Diocese of Le Mans, France,
Geoffridus d'Ass
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Cefalu, Sicily
Petrus Taurs (Pepers)
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Cervia, Italy
Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Civita Castellana, Italy
Johannes Magnesi O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Evreux, France
Philippus de Chaourse
Consecrated in February 1270
Diocese of Forlimpopoli, Italy
Ravaldinus
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Lismore-Waterford, Ireland
Johannes de Rupe (Roche)
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Lucca, Italy
Paganellus
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of St. Jean de Maurienne, France
Petrus de Gualis
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Meaux, France
Johannes de Garlande
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Metz, Germany
Laurientius von Leisteberg
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Sion, Switzerland
Raudulfus de Valpelline
Consecrated in June, 1271
Diocese of Tolouse, France
Bertandus de Lisle Jourdain
Consecrated October 20, 1270
Diocese of Troyes, France
Johannes de Nanteuil
Consecrated June of 1269
Diocese of Abril, Spain
Petrus Urg
Consecrated November 3, 1269
Commentary: Some misinformed Catholics have claimed “no pope, no bishops” and have thus rejected those traditional Catholic bishops who have been consecrated during the present crisis in the Church which has followed the Second Vatican Council. During the interregnum between Pope Clement IV and Blessed Gregory X which lasted under three years, bishops were consecrated without a papal mandate. Therefore, a fortiori (from the stronger argument) during this extended interregnum of today, the longest in the history of the Church, bishops can be consecrated for the spiritual needs of the faithful and for the common good of the Catholic Church.
II. Distinction between Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law
In the American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1896, on Episcopal Elections, an important distinction is made between divine law and ecclesiastical law in regard to the election and consecration of bishops:
“In the Catholic Church there are several points of discipline which are fixed and unalterable, because they are of divine right, and of Christ's own institution. There are others, which vary according to the times, because the Divine Author of the Church left it to herself to take into account the ever changing vicissitudes of human society, the progress of civilization, and the needs and requirements of succeeding ages. To a hierarchy strongly organized and deeply imbued with His spirit and His teaching, He entrusted the delicate task of adapting the Church's discipline to the wants of the moment.
“No more striking example of what we assert can be found than in the history of the episcopacy. A sacred order, ranking higher than the priesthood, with powers of jurisdiction and with authority partially sovereign — although controlled by a central administration, which, in view of the general good determines the extent of its action — the episcopacy instituted by Jesus Christ, and ever remaining the same, has, however, been conferred in various ways in different ages of the Church. The reason of this changing discipline is to bring it more in touch with the spirit of the times and the needs of the faithful.”
In The Church of the Incarnate Word, written by Monsignor Charles Journet, Professor of the Major Seminary of Fribourg, in 1952, this distinction between divine and ecclesiastical laws is reiterated:
“The power of naming or instituting bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff (Codex Juris Canonici, 329,2, and 332,1). But, remarks Cajetan in his De Romani Pontificis Institutione (cap. xiii, ad 6), we have to distinguish between the power of the Sovereign Pontiff (auctoritas) and the exercise of this power (executio), which has varied in mode down the centuries. Thus the ancient ecclesiastical discipline left to the Patriarchs of Alexandria or of Antioch the right to elect the bishops of their provinces. The elections of bishops effected during a vacancy of the Holy See and regarded as valid, are thus to be explained.”
“'No one,' says St. Leo the Great, 'can be held to be a bishop who has not been elected by the clergy nor asked for by the people' (Ibid., col. 2259). The Bishop of Rome did not directly intervene in the election; he was content to see it carried out properly.”
Commentary: The concept of invoking epikeia (a benign interpretation of law according to the mind of the legislator and not according to the strict letter of the law) enters into our consideration of the ecclesiastical law on the exercise of the papal power (executio) which has varied in mode throughout the centuries. The well-known axiom salus animarum, suprema lex -the salvation of souls is the supreme law, reminds us of the words of Pope Pius XII: “Canon law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; the purpose of its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God” (address to clerics in Rome, 1939). The papal mandate was not always and everywhere required; in view of the long vacancy of the Apostolic See, the use of epikeia
III. Supplying of Jurisdiction to Bishops During the Great Western Schism
From 1378 until 1417 the Catholic Church suffered what is known as the Great Western Schism, during which there were two and later three claimants to the Papacy — one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa. Even saints and theologians were divided on this issue of the identity of the true pope. Although the word “schism” is employed here, it's not quite accurate in the sense that there was no denial of papal authority; the doubt was only as to who the legitimate pope was.
In his De Ecclesia Christi (1946), the Jesuit theologian Fr. Timothy Zapelena, S.J., in the chapter on the Supreme Pontiff and Jurisdiction raised hypothetical objections to his thesis and answered each objection. One objection he proposed and answered was the supposed lack of jurisdiction in the Church during the Great Western Schism:
“But upon granting our thesis, there follow serious problems for the time of the Western Schism. Certainly a doubtful pope is no pope. However during the whole time of the schism the true pope was doubtful. Therefore, there was none; hence, he could not confer jurisdiction upon the bishops. It would follow, therefore, that bishops confirmed by a doubtful pope lacked true jurisdiction: the same may be said about priests who received jurisdiction (in the internal forum) from these bishops. But nevertheless the bishops gathered in the Council of Constance supposed that they had the power to convoke a council and repair the schism. Therefore:
“Response:
a) It will be permissible in the first place to turn back the argument upon the adversaries. The aforesaid difficulty presses them all in the same way as it does us: for all admit the bishops, to exercise actual jurisdiction, need either pontifical election or recognition. If a doubtful pope cannot confer jurisdiction neither can he truly confirm a bishop who is chosen or consecrated.
“b) Therefore, let the response be direct: according to those things which we said in thesis 11a, the true pope was the Roman one, that is, Urban VI and his successors. Therefore he was able to give jurisdiction even to the bishops of the other obediences (on account of the common error of the faithful together with the colored title). Even the election of Martin V seems to be explained by the faculty given to the Council by Gregory XII. For the rest, if you figure those three popes to be null, you ought to admit that jurisdiction is supplied (on account of color of title) not indeed by the Church, which lacks the supreme power, but by Christ Himself, who would confer jurisdiction on each of these antipopes, as much as was necessary.”
Commentary: Fr. Zapelena states that jurisdiction was supplied by the true pope to those bishops who mistakenly followed the wrong papal claimant. Furthermore, he also defends his thesis in the hypothetical supposition that if all three papal claimants were doubtful popes and therefore no popes at all, Christ Himself would have conferred jurisdiction as much as was necessary.
Why is this so? The Catholic Church is indefectible and must always remain the institution of salvation as established by Christ. The proof of this thesis can be demonstrated from the historical fact that with the election of Pope Martin V and the end of the schism, the validity and lawfulness Of the Sacraments administered by the bishops and priests of each of the three factions (during this Great Western Schism) were never questioned. The reason for this is that jurisdiction was supplied either by the true pope or in the event there was no pope, by Christ Himself.
If one were to raise the objection that Fr. Zapelena states that jurisdiction is only supplied “on account of the common error of the faithful together with the colored title,” and that there is no “color of title” with the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops today, the answer is found in Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M.., LL.B. (November 1957):
“In the old Canon Law the great majority of Canonists and moralists did not admit that common error alone was sufficient to make the exercise of jurisdiction valid; they demanded in addition the 'titulus coloratus,' that is to say, some act on the part of the superior which is ordinarily sufficient to confer jurisdiction, but which, on account of some secret impediment was rendered invalid. THAT 'COLOR OF TITLE' IS NO LONGER REQUIRED, AND IN CASE OF COMMON ERROR, NO MATTER HOW CREATED, THE CHURCH SUPPLIES THE JURISDICTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE.”
IV. Conclusion
Some may claim that those who perform or receive episcopal consecrations during the present interregnum have incurred excommunications according to Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolicam Principis of June 29,1958. However, those who claim this fail to understand the very nature of law and the principles of Canon Law.
First of all, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, laws are ordinances of right reason made for the common good promulgated by one who has authority in society. A fundamental principle of law is that
“Law ceases automatically:
“1. if through changed conditions, it has become harmful, impossible or irrational;
“2. if its very purpose has ceased to be verified for the whole community” (Moral Theology, Ff. Henry Davis, 1958).
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical was addressing the situation in China in which the Communist government had established a schismatic Church to rival the Catholic Church. When there is a true Pope, no bishop may be consecrated without papal authorization, much less to establish a “hierarchy” for a schismatic Church.
Secondly, the 1917 Code of Canon Law asserts that penal laws are to be interpreted strictly, i.e., if the facts of the case are not exactly according to the conditions required in the law, the penalty is not incurred (“in poenis, benignior interpretatio”). When we read the exact wording of Pope Pius XII's encyclical, we find the conditions:
“Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.”
There is certainly no parallel between the situation in China in the 1950's and that of traditional Catholics today.
In conclusion, the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates clearly that episcopal consecration during an extended interregnum is not only permissible but also necessary for the spiritual welfare of the Catholic faithful and the common good of the Church (to insure valid Holy Orders).
Pax
-
Pius XII, discourse of 23 March 1949 to the preachers and parish priests of Rome:
"In the formidable religious controversies of which we are the witnesses, we can truly count only on those faithful who pray and who strive, even at the cost of great self-denial, to conform their lives to the divine law. All the rest offer themselves unprotected to the blows of the enemy".
Yes, but the Pope was principally referring to the controversies stirred by the modernists and the secular humanists, which is not to be compared to the internecine polemical skirmishes amongst the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion. The paramount and indispensable place of the earnest cultivation of the interior life is something you and I have mentioned during these discussions.
The Supreme Law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls. That Supreme Law supercedes legalism. The Church Supplies Jurisdiction. That is the Essence of Epikea.
It is not "legalism" to defend the principles of Apostolicity and those of the Sacred Canons: these pertain to the faith and to sensus Catholicus, without which even the ceremonies of the sacred liturgical books are reduced to absurd antiquarianism.
Yes, epikeia pertains to the spiritual welfare of the faithful, and the Church supplies jurisdiction by operation of the law itself in accordance to the pertinent principles, but that does not mean that the acephalous traditionalist clerics have somehow jurisdiction supplied "habitually" or "perpetually." No matter how many individual instances are repeated by a validly ordained traditional Catholic cleric, such a Priest or Bishop operates by supplied jurisdiction only in performing such an act (such as hearing Confession and absolving penitents), and neither before nor after. A Priest can absolve hundreds of penitents in the tribunal of Sacred Penance on any given Sunday or major Festival, but he has only supplied jurisdiction in the individual, isolated instances wherein he hears each penitent's confession and absolves him: he does not "carry" with him that supplied jurisdiction.
Now in order for your position to have merit - you would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that B 16 is a legitimate Holy Roman Pontiff which in light of his numerous defections from the Faith is suspect at best and at worst fully Heretical and his universality is likewise in question since even the Novus Ordo liberals ignore his authority and operate as if there is no Lawful Authority , nor do the SSPX follow his directives - so how can he claim universal acceptance.
You misunderstand my position. You will have to direct that query to such other Catholics as Nishant.
Furthermore, no one traditionalist camp can prove conclusively and absolutely their stance.
However, just because the Apostolic See has been usurped or vacant does not mean that the there is no authority in the Church: were that to happen, the visibility of the Church would be destroyed, something which is rash if not outright heretical to maintain.
As John Lane has recently written (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290&sid=aeea14d4757e2e94d9f388ae94ea824b):
3. The entire hierarchy cannot cease to exist in act. Not all of the bishops can leave the Church, nor can all of them die, so as to leave none remaining.
4. The Church is indefectible. That is, she must continue to exist at every moment in time, with the same essential features she was given by our Lord when He founded her.
5. The Church is a visible unity. This unity is threefold - two external bonds, of faith and charity, and one principle of unity, her hierarchy united under the Roman Pontiff.
Therefore , if indeed we are in a period of Interregnum which many believe we are - ecclesiastic authority is suspect , and the authorities you cite all presuppose Lawful and Legitimate Authority to be in place and the fulcrum for your stance.
There is lawful and legitimate authority in the Church, as I have explained above. It's just that the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church has made the factual matter of the identity and locality of the hierarchy and of the Supreme Pontiff a very controversial question.
The errors of the acephalous clerics have made things even more confusing.
So the obvious dilemma being - have the Gates of Hell prevailed in just such a scenario? Obviously not because we have the Supreme Law of the Church - we have Holy Orders and we have Apostolic Succession - and so long as we have that - we have legitimate jurisdiction under the Supreme Law of the Church.
If you are applying this to the present day acephalous clerics, you are wrong. They have material Apostolicity, and are awaiting for a future Pope to authoritatively declare whether or not they can legitimately claim formal Apostolicity, just as he will pass judgment upon all the "judiciary" acts that the selfsame clerics have done (e.g. made decisions in the internal forum regarding the application of the Pauline Privilege, the ordination and consecration of other clerics, the profession of Religious, &c.) whilst invoking supplied jurisdiction contingent upon the principles of epikeia.
This is why the CMRI Fathers scrupulously archive everything they have done regarding these matters. They are aware that a future Pope will pass judgment on this matter.
Of course, some Priests and Bishops have openly declared that the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church constitutes the "Great Apostasy" that St. Paul foretold in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, making the question of a future Pope a very labyrinthine and quizzical one: for it implies that the reign of anti-Christ (the actual human person, not just the spirit of iniquity that has always warred against the Church) is nigh.
The Gates of Hell are equated to the Tongues of Heretics by at least 2 Popes and St Thomas Aquinas as well. Are we to assume that the Jurisdiction you cite may be emanating from the Gates of Hell itself - and that is the Legitimate Authority you cite?
Again, you have misunderstood my position on this matter, which is as follows:
A consistent sedevacantist would admit that it is precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant (according to their understanding) that no traditionalist Bishop can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them [1] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II.).
The reality is that the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, pres-byteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.
Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).
It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).
Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt” [emphasis mine]).
Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII, De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “Quemlibet clericuм oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).
One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi. Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly bereft of the sensus Catholicus.
In any event - Archbishop Thuc had Papal Approval to Consecrate Bishops from Pope Pius the XII which was never recinded and made it abundantly clear why he was doing it.
This is not pertinent to the discussion, because we are speaking of all acephalous clerics, some of whose Orders are not derived from Archbishop Thuc. In any case, Archbishop Thuc did not (nor could he) endue his Ordinands or Bishops-elect with any delegated jurisdiction just in the act of Ordination or Consecration alone. The burden of proof falls upon those who insist otherwise: they would have to present irrefutable evidence that such a decree was given by Pope Pius XII, and the text thereof, and prove that this decree was never revoked; not to mention that they would have to contextualize such a situation within the principles of the Sacred Canons and the teachings of theologians.
The rest of your citations and arguments elucidate upon the urgency that made the consecrations and ordinations of Archbishop Thuc a necessary and salutary thing for the faithful: the principles of epikeia suffice to eliminate any moral culpability on the part of Archbishop Thuc and those who with earnest hearts sought Sacred Orders from him (for frauds and charlatans also approached the late Archbishop, such as the Palma de Troya sect), and to sanction morally and Canonically the ordinations and consecrations of the acephalous clergy of the present day, and serve to elucidate upon the validity of such Orders.
However, the acephalous clerics cannot go on to arrogate to themselves [formal] Apostolic succession and the possession and exercise of habitual and/or delegated jurisdiction. Those selfsame clerics of good will (such as the CMRI Fathers and the SSPX Fathers, for example) have never done so.
Again, I am not arguing against the existence and pastoral apostolate of the acephalous clerics of the traditional movement. I am merely pointing out that it is rash and erroneous for them to arrogate to themselves Apostolic succession and the possession and exercise of habitual or delegated jurisdiction; or for the layfolk to ascribe these things to them, perhaps without their knowledge or consent.
In order for us to see clearly the problems occasioned by the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church, we must have recourse to the approved teachings of trained theologians of the past, and see reality for what it is: lest we risk scandalizing the faithful who are beginning to see the many problems in the Johannine-Pauline structures (whether doctrinal, ethical, sociological, psychological, &c.) and yet may run back to the Novus Ordo if they perceive that rash and erroneous notions of the Church of Christ are espoused by the very traditionalists who purport to defend it against the modernists.
-
During the interregnum from the death of Pope Clement IV on November 29, 1268, to the election of Blessed Gregory X on September 1, 1271, twenty-one vacancies occurred in various dioceses. During this time bishops were consecrated without papal mandate to fill these vacancies because of the spiritual necessity of the faithful and the impossibility of having recourse to the Holy See.
According to the docuмent “Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi” by Fr. Conrad Eubel, O.F.M., S.T.D., printed in 1913, the following bishops were elected and consecrated during the period of the above-mentioned vacancy.
Diocese of Avranches, France
Radulfus de Thieville
Consecrated November 1269
Diocese of Aleria, Corsica
Nicolaus Forteguerra
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Antivari, Greece
Caspar Adam O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Auxerre, France,
Erardus de Lesinnes
Consecrated in January 1271
Diocese of Chalons sur Saorie, France
Potius de Sissey
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Cagli, Italy,
Jacobus
Consecrated September 8, 1270
Diocese of Le Mans, France,
Geoffridus d'Ass
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Cefalu, Sicily
Petrus Taurs (Pepers)
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Cervia, Italy
Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Civita Castellana, Italy
Johannes Magnesi O.P.
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Evreux, France
Philippus de Chaourse
Consecrated in February 1270
Diocese of Forlimpopoli, Italy
Ravaldinus
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Lismore-Waterford, Ireland
Johannes de Rupe (Roche)
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Lucca, Italy
Paganellus
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of St. Jean de Maurienne, France
Petrus de Gualis
Consecrated in 1270
Diocese of Meaux, France
Johannes de Garlande
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Metz, Germany
Laurientius von Leisteberg
Consecrated in 1269
Diocese of Sion, Switzerland
Raudulfus de Valpelline
Consecrated in June, 1271
Diocese of Tolouse, France
Bertandus de Lisle Jourdain
Consecrated October 20, 1270
Diocese of Troyes, France
Johannes de Nanteuil
Consecrated June of 1269
Diocese of Abril, Spain
Petrus Urg
Consecrated November 3, 1269
This list of bishops are diocesan bishops, which differs from our current traditional bishops. During the time of sedevacante, when a diocesan bishop is recognized by (acclamation) of the clergy of his diocese, he becomes the lawful bishop with jurisdiction by the tacit approval of the pope.
The same could happen today. The remaining diocesan clergy, who still have the faith and lawfully appointed, could assemble in each respective diocese to elect their bishop. This bishop would have jurisdiction and would be the ordinary of the diocese through the tacit approval of the pope, in the same manner as the bishops from your quote above.
-
Thank you very, very much, Hobbledehoy, for posting that excellent and detailed explanation from Msgr. Noort.
The same doctrine concerning order and jurisdiction is expressly taught by Pope Pius XII also in Ad Sinarum Gentem, 1954 (p.12) and recalled in Ad Apostolorum Principis, 1958 (p.38-39) that "the power of jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Successor of St. Peter" and "enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff".
When a particular sacramental action requires jurisdiction for its completion, for that, and for that alone and at that moment, this is supplied by the Church, as for traditional Bishops today. But, as has been said, this is neither a type nor a species of ordinary jurisdiction nor the equivalent of the possession of an episcopal office, nor can habitual jurisdiction be construed as merely a sum of various acts of supplied jurisdiction.
An earlier source on Apostolicity.
This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry.
Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they breach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character.
Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.
The First Vatican Council said this: "So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time" which is also viewed by theologians as laying out the necessity that there always remain in the Church at least some Bishops and pastors with true governing authority, juridical, legislative and coercive, divinely granted and duly transmitted, until the end of time.
Ambrose, thank you for the invite. I do read Bellarmine forums occasionally, there is a lot of useful information definitely, but I've not signed up there. I've signed up on Ignis, where John Lane posts every now and then, but never posted there. I'll consider joining up.
Regarding what you said just above, would such a tacit approval by a later Pope have retroactive force? I'm not sure it would. In such a scenario, I think said Bishops would only receive habitual jurisdiction at that point of time in the future, and not before. Would you disagree?
God bless.
-
I remember I still owe a resposne to a post. John, let me know what you think on the sources that have been posted here with regard to jurisdiction and apostolicity. I am omitting that part in my response below until I get to know whether on the basis of the authorities cited above, you accept the stated doctrine of these theologians on such matters or dispute them or their applications today.
"At least as of that moment" I have heard that. But I am not sure how that can change the objective reality that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office.
Well, good question. Here is Msgr.Noort touching on the same subject,
One must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.” For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession
Msgr.Journet and earlier writers also say the same thing also with regard to election and the acceptance of such and such a person uncontested. It's important to note this recognition, in the minds of Billot and other writers as being true at the time of Savanarola sufficed as proof that the Chair was not vacant at that time. The explanation as to how (perhaps he was not a public or notorious heretic, perhaps something else) came later.
As for it's application today, it appears to me undeniable that presently almost all of the world Bishops, and certainly all those with an episcopal office, though even a number of traditional Bishops, SSPX and independent perhaps without, recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the legitimate Pope and pray for him publicly as Pope.
Therefore, I just do not see how it can be said the Chair is vacant. At the very best, I really think the only way out is we can only say there must be a true Pope elsewhere but hidden. But even that is terribly problematic for other reasons.
I will also add the obvious, that the traditional Bishops are not a schismatic sect.
Of course, if it wasn't clear, I wasn't saying Catholic Bishops are schismatic Bishops. I said, theologians have always held that schismatic Bishops having valid Apostolic succession still do not constitute an Apostolic Church for the precise reason that jurisdiction is the formal element (the material element being the succession itself) in Apostolicity.
I believe the Church may infact have a remedy.
Agitating for a Council was what Savanarola did, which even now I would not oppose, though I think it very improbable, but I believe there is a more perfect way, even though its opponents will think it foolhardy.
From the Church of the Word Incarnate, 1954,
"The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey. This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it.
To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases. They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless. There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints."
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a "common" means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the "proper" means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress.
Do we know for absolute certain that Alexader VI was not Pope. As certain as the validity of canonized Saints before V"2"? Or is this merely an opinion of is held by the majority.
Yes, Msgr.Noort says we would have to give an absolute assent to such a consensus as being infallible, which he calls "ecclesiastical faith".
And the counter to his thought was not that a public heretic could legitimately hold office, but that he was not in fact a public heretic who insisted on his heres,y once corrected, if he was a public heretic at all.
See above, this was postulated as one explanation of the reality that Pope Alexander VI, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, remained Pope. But the practically and morally unanimous recognition of Pope Alexander VI was cited as a sufficient and incontrovertible proof of the reality of his Papacy. So we must distinguish what makes it known with certainty with the various possible explanations of it.
I think this covers everything you bought up. Let me know if there's anything else.
God bless.
-
Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 149-151
339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?
A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule, made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.
340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.
341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.
342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.
343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.
344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?
A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.
I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.
-
Section 343 III
Could that be devoid on exigency circuмstance outlined in the Code of Canon Law 1983 and which is used by SSPX to explain 1988 consecrations?
assume so.....
-
When Nishant opines:
"Msgr.Journet and earlier writers also say the same thing also with regard to election and the acceptance of such and such a person uncontested. It's important to note this recognition, in the minds of Billot and other writers as being true at the time of Savanarola sufficed as proof that the Chair was not vacant at that time. The explanation as to how (perhaps he was not a public or notorious heretic, perhaps something else) came later.
As for it's application today, it appears to me undeniable that presently almost all of the world Bishops, and certainly all those with an episcopal office, though even a number of traditional Bishops, SSPX and independent perhaps without, recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the legitimate Pope and pray for him publicly as Pope.
Therefore, I just do not see how it can be said the Chair is vacant. At the very best, I really think the only way out is we can only say there must be a true Pope elsewhere but hidden. But even that is terribly problematic for other reasons.
Malleus: This is precisely where we disagree. It is the contention of many that these times mirror more closely the time of the Arian Heresy (the question of the Pope notwithstanding) than the time of time of Savanarola you allude to and that is precisely why we disagree.
Does it matter if at the time of Liberias - Arian Bishops accepted him as a legitimate Pope? Obviously not because they themselves were outside the Church because they were Arian. Have you taken the time to read the stances taken by the US Council of Catholic Bishops? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Opus Dei? Several others Without naming names ? ET AL? That is precisely the problem. This is not a snapshot in time , not only have the Modernists had 50 years to consecrate suspect Bishops since the fact remains they have had the power to do so , are we to assume they are all legitimate? Certainly if we question the legitimacy of the Pope himself - does this somehow translate into merely a false Claimant issue or is the Heresy much deeper than that - calling into question many of the worlds Bishops and Cardinals themselves.
So in that regard , your argument is suspect. There is a certain collegiality that was established by Vatican II - that the Office of POPE in no way resembles that office as when Pope Pius the XII was Vicar. Today - Bishops can pretty much be autonomous in many areas of the World. That is evidence in and of itself , that B 16 is not universally accepted. The NO Papacy for all intents and purposes resembles the English Monarchy of Queen Elizabeth - all pomp and circuмstance and no political power.
A Legitimate Papacy is not that. I think you need to reassess your position , mainly because you all like to compare past Papacies and past theological opinions based on a legitimately understood and executed Papacy and what we have today which is nothing of the sort. Since it isnt an apples to apples argument to begin with , I do not feel the stable ground you assume your argument is based on in anything more than the shifting sand of a new man made religion , not based on a Sovereign GOD whose Vicar's words carry the weight of St Peter himself - but rather that of a democracy where individual Bishops are allowed to follow their own conscience irrespective of Dogma or of the Mission of the Church - to save Souls and to Spread the Faith and to Convert Infidels. These same Bishops whom you say support and Accept B 16 are the very Bishops carrying out False Ecuмenism , Religious Indifferentism , and Religious Liberty. So forgive me if I refuse to accept that B 16 is universally accepted. It is paramount that those who accept the Holy Roman Pontiff first and foremost be above reproach themselves or said acceptance is moot. From where I am sitting , acceptance by Traditional Bishops carries more weight , not because of Numbers , but rather , because of the very thing Hobbledehoy alluded to -"Sensus Catholica" - they have it. Archbishop Thuc had it. Archbishop Lefebvre had it . And the fact that they question the legitimacy should make us as well.
Pax
-
Section 343 III
Could that be devoid on exigency circuмstance outlined in the Code of Canon Law 1983 and which is used by SSPX to explain 1988 consecrations?
assume so.....
Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:
We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.
From Fideliter:
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)
Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."
Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circuмstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.
Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?
Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...
Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.
-
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.
Malleus, it's only to be expected that we would differ in our application of the principles, otherwise there wouldn't be such a multitude of opinions. But so long as we agree on the principles, to me that's good enough. Obviously, I hope we've all considered our own position thoughtfully and prayerfully and hold it because we think, all things considered, it is the best explanation. We can't all be right, but at least we can all either be right or err in good faith.
I'll briefly mention why I consider my own position the most prudent with regard to the Arian analogy you bought up.
Does it matter if at the time of Liberias - Arian Bishops accepted him as a legitimate Pope? Obviously not because they themselves were outside the Church because they were Arian.
Agreed, and likewise those who fall prey to the prominent errors of our time, Bishop or Pope notwithstanding, will do so to their eternal peril. It matters not how numerous they are, some historians I've read said more than 90% of the Bishops fell into heresy here.
But this only undergirds my point. What did St.Athanasius, the hero of this time, do? He wasn't interested in condemning the Pope nor declaring the See of Peter vacant. Rather, he kept the faith and it alone and did not pass judgment. There were others who did, and I do not blame them, and after all these were not ordinary laymen but the Roman clergy, but these certainly did not help resolve the crisis nor even to tide it over in anyway, and certainly not as St.Athanasius courageously did, and these latter even may have contributed to its complication.
I gave another example. St.Maximus and Pope Honorius. A letter this Pope wrote to the Patriarch Sergius led to the Monothelite heretics being confirmed in their errors. When St.Maximus, who understood the underlying doctrine with a profundity and a purity that I'm convinced would entirely surpass ordinary men, had holy Mother Church not later defined it herself, was forced to agree with the Pope (or so they thought at least) or to condemn him, he did neither, but only held to and expounded the true doctrine in question, that in Christ there are two principles of operation of the will, proper to his divine and to his human nature respectively and properly so called. Then the Greeks cut out his tongue and killed him, though today they venerate him as a Father of the Church.
May it please God to restore Christendom to her former greatness and glory, and, even, as Our Lady has promised, to heights greater still.
-
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.
-
Consideration fo the following might be in order as well:
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.
-
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.
-
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 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
-
This has not been done in this crisis, but it has been recognized as lawful in the history of the Church.
I don't think so. An argument can be made for the application of epieikeia to the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, but this merely provides for the necessity of the sacraments, not the power to rule.
Apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.
-
Hi Nishant,
Thank you for responding to me yet again.
Just to stick to the crux of the matter, which you are very good at doing I want to ask or re-ask the following questions, the first of which you may have already answered but I would like to see your response nonetheless.
1. Do you agree that Divine Law, which states that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office, is more certain than the supposed teaching at an interregnum can last longer than a certain unspecified amount of time. (The question is almost rhetorical and I hope we can agree on the answer). And if we can agree on the answer the idea of there being a certain limit on an interregnum becomes mute. For if it is certain that a public heretic cannot be Pope then it is certain that an interregnum can last as long as public heretics claim the office.
2. Where those who thought certain valid popes were invalid Popes because of a supposed public heresy they would not retract wrong, because it is incorrect to believe a public heretic cannot hold office, or were they wrong because it was concluded that the claimants were not public heretics, at least after amending their position when the error was brought to their attention? If it is not wrong to believe that public heretics cannot hold office then your point about people being wrong in the past as to whether one was a Pope or not is mute, because the current and past claimants are undeniably public heretics and undeniably have "bound" on the Church what valid Popes cannot bind.
3. My question on whether valid traditional Bishops, regardless of the type of jurisdiction they hold, being both apostolic and visible, as they are successors of the Apostles, has not be answered. If they are truly successors of the Apostles then the type of jurisdiction they have does not enter into the equation. Are you saying they are not valid successors of the Apostles if they only have supplied jurisdiction?
4. I asked if all bishops must be consecrated by the will of a reigning Pontiff or not is of intrinsic necessity or just a good discipline under normal times.
5. I believe before Vatican 2 bishops have been consecrated without a valid Pope approving it, due to persecutions, a long interregnum, lack of communication, and during the GWS when no one was sure who the Pope was or even if we had one. So am I correct to state that the idea that Pope must approve a consecration in order for it to be apostolic is not always the case, not a case of intrinsic necessity?
6. The above simplified means that during normal times it is indeed proper for a Pope to approve the consecrations and to do consecrations against his expressed will would be wrong, but when there is no Pope how can we expect one who does not exist to approve it?
7. Is the Church forced to sit on her hands and not consecrate anyone and supply the ordinary means of sanctifying grace when there is no Pope? Is it de fide that no Bishop is apostolic or visible, and does not have ordinary jurisdiction during these extraordinary times? Would Fenton, Pius V, X or XII insist on that during these times, if they themselves were alive but not Pope?
Are you entirely sure that our traditional bishops are not apostolic by the direct will of Christ Himself and have their authority from Him during these extraordinary times? It would seem a bit of a stretch to insist on the contrary.
I do not understand why the traditional bishops are not what make the Church apostolic and visible.
And, given the circuмstances, I am not sure how we can infallibly insist that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction (not over certain territories, but over their flocks).
And even if they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, how can we say the Church does not continue her Apostolicity in them? Why must we, instead, insist that the heretics legitimately hold office or old non-heretical bishops that no one knows about are the visible and apostolic Church?
-
Consideration fo the following might be in order as well:
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.
Malleus: Yes it is lawful (Epikeia) for it defends the common good - it is only dangerous when it no longer defends the common good as judged by GOD. The Spiritual aspect of our faith is being wholly ignored here so it is more of the same. Think about it this way - the entire reason for the Traditional movement is the simple fact that the common good isnt being defended - nor are the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith given man by GOD specifically for his guidance. This is where the judgement lies. No False Shepherd can get away with it for long. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Those are the words of Our Lord. So the real question is not whether or not Epikeia is lawful - the question is whether or not Traditional Bishops use of Epikeia is for the common good in the face of an alternative where following Ecclesiastic Law offers a viable ability to be orthodox. With Modernism infiltrating the hierarchy to such a degree , in my view it is not only prudent but essentially the ONLY Solution. The dangers of following outright Heretics poses the greater danger than following Orthodox Catholic Bishops of good will. The Public and manifest Heresies of those who supposedly hold eccesiastic power poses the greater threat.
-
Yes it is lawful (Epikeia) for it defends the common good - it is only dangerous when it no longer defends the common good as judged by GOD. The Spiritual aspect of our faith is being wholly ignored here so it is more of the same. Think about it this way - the entire reason for the Traditional movement is the simple fact that the common good isnt being defended - nor are the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith given man by GOD specifically for his guidance. This is where the judgement lies. No False Shepherd can get away with it for long. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Those are the words of Our Lord. So the real question is not whether or not Epikeia is lawful - the question is whether or not Traditional Bishops use of Epikeia is for the common good in the face of an alternative where following Ecclesiastic Law offers a viable ability to be orthodox. With Modernism infiltrating the hierarchy to such a degree , in my view it is not only prudent but essentially the ONLY Solution. The dangers of following outright Heretics poses the greater danger than following Orthodox Catholic Bishops of good will. The Public and manifest Heresies of those who supposedly hold eccesiastic power poses the greater threat.
Malleus, the application of epieikeia can either be legitimate or not. Because it is a private judgment, it is dangerous. I agree that it can apply to trad priests and bishops. I'll repeat what I just said a few posts back:
An argument can be made for the application of epieikeia to the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, but this merely provides for the necessity of the sacraments, not the power to rule.
Apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.
-
I believe it is only necessary for a Pope to approve consecrations when there is one available to do so.
I believe the teaching that this is necessary applies when there is an actual Pope in existence. The teaching is that it would be wrong to consecrate Bishops without his permission. The teaching assumes his existence. The long interregnum was not foreseen or addressed in the teaching.
Please correct me if I am wrong and show me the docuмentation that clarifies.
Also show me where it is taught that during an extended interregnum, that those bishop consecrated during that time do not have ordinary jurisdiction. I have not seen where the pre-V2 authorities have addressed an extended interregnum.
Additionally, those who insist that the Apostolicity of the Church only exists amongst our heretical Bishops and or among the hidden retired bishops that no one can point out should show where this would be applicable to a time of extended interregnum. For it seems to me that to insist on such is straining the gnat in in saying the apostolicity of the Church is maintained in either heretical bishops and or retired bishops that no one is aware of while swallowing the camel that the Catholic Bishops do not have apostolicity.
It is great to have these pre-V2 teachings that apply to normal circuмstances and I have learned much from them, but I'd like to see what appertains to long interregnums.
-
The power of orders is immediately directed to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is immediately directed to ruling the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium) and through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects (judicial power), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law (coactive or coercive power). These last three powers are functions of the same sacred jurisdictional authority with which the Church is endowed as a perfect society.
The power of jurisdiction is divided into: (1) power of forum externum, when directed principally to the common good, in so far as it regulates the social relations of the members and produces public juridical effects; and power of forum internum, when directed principally to private good, in so far as it regulates the relations of consciences with God and is exercised per se secretly and with prevalently moral effects; (2) ordinary power, when ipso jure (by law) it is connected with an office, and delegated power, when it is granted to a person by commission or delegation. Ordinary power is further divided into proper, i.e., annexed to an office and exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio), and vicarious, i.e., annexed to an office but exercised in another’s name.
“For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circuмstances being very plainly determined. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)
“…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)
“ …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)
“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)
Many other things have been posted here to support this. The trad bishops are simply not Successors to the Apostles. This isn't a criticism, it's just a fact.
-
Agreed, SJB. I think we see eye to eye on this subject.
The problem here is that facts that have already been established as pertaining to Catholic doctrine are being adjusted to suit the various theories doing the rounds in the present day, rather than the other way around.
John, there are two issues here.
1. Episcopal consecrations performed during an acknowledged interregnum are necessarily incapable of conferring ordinary jurisdiction.
This is so, to use your own term, by "intrinsic necessity". It would be an usurpation of the authority proper to the Pope alone to claim otherwise, and no traditional Bishop I'm aware of has done so. The explanation of Bishop Tissier posted above by SJB is masterful.
2. Ordinary jurisdiction is the formal component (apart from the material succession) and therefore a strict requirement of the note of Apostolicity.
Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.
If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying.
-
The problem here is that facts that have already been established as pertaining to Catholic doctrine are being adjusted to suit the various theories doing the rounds in the present day, rather than the other way around.
This is a problem that I keep seeing within the coteries of certain traditionalist Catholics, and you, SJB and others are seeing this too. It is daunting and terrifying to behold this continue.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such. [emphases mine]
Yes: this is precisely why these labyrinthine theological and Canonical issues have taken on a new and centric importance, together with an ineluctable urgency and relevance; something which may not have been the case decades earlier when early apologists such as Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor were writing against the novelties of the Johannine-Pauline Council, as the theological principles pertinent to such discourse had not been examined in their complexity and profundity as clearly as we do so now.
In the wake of the exceeding great obfuscation consequent upon the Johannine-Pauline construct's wicked pretension to promulgate a nova œconomia that is diametrically contrary and mutually exclusive to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church, certain acephalous clerics and their lay disciples appear to have inaugurated their own ecclesiological œconomia wherein formal Apostolicity and duly sanctioned Canonical missions and offices can somehow exist without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore these selfsame clerics―as a matter of fact, bereft of a Canonical mission together with a duly ordained office, and consequently deprived of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, and thus unable to claim formal Apostolic succession―seem to arrogate to themselves some sort of "extraordinary mission," or tacitly allow their lay disciples to ascribe it to them in neglecting to correct their gross ecclesiological errors.
These clerics are doing more harm than good by neglecting to correct these erring apologists. These Priests and Bishops are especially bound to correct these erring Catholics―whether they err in good will notwithstanding―by reason of the exigencies of fraternal charity and the duties concomitant with the moral virtue of religion: and, above all else, by reason of the grave obligations concomitant with the sacred vocation which these Priests and Bishops have undertook of their own free volition in these tumultuous times (corresponding with the inspirations of divine grace), despite the problematic Canonical ramifications inexorably inherent in this course of action.
If the order of justice and equity cannot be observed literally according to the prescripts and principles of the Sacred Canons, the acephalous clerics must adhere to the greater order of charity with self-effacing magnanimity and relentless self-abnegation, ideally by following the spiritual doctrines set forth by St. Louis-Marie regarding total consecration to Jesus through Mary. However, in order for the order of charity to be observed meritoriously and fruitfully, the reality of things as they are now must be faced and addressed in an earnest and clear manner, according to the doctrines and principles taught by Holy Mother Church as understood by the Roman Pontiffs, Doctors, Fathers, and theologians of times past.
-
Thanks for the response, I ask because I did not know if this was of intrinsic nessisty. I will have to carefully read the posts.
So we must accept that we have only heretical and or hidden, retired valid successors that can be categorized as "apostolic". This seems somewhat repulsive, but if the Church really teaches this, and I become convinced the Church teaches this I will accept it of course.
This leads me to ask, which is it:
Is our Apostolic Church composed of:
1. Heretical invalidly consecrated bishops
2. Heretical validly consecrated bishops (pre-1968)
3. Hidden non-heretical, retired validly consecrated bishops
4. Some of the above.
5. All of the above.
I'd be most curious to the answer and feel bad the the visible, unretired traditional Bishops are left out of the equation.
I'm not speaking of evolotion of doctrine by any stretch. I was asking if certain "laws" are applicable to long interregnums.
If these are not laws but doctrine's I stand corrected.
But this thread is about whether it is possible to have a long interregnum.
Here is the key qusestion, which I have not seen answered here yet:
Is the Divine Law that states that a public heretic cannot be Pope more certain than the supposition that we can't have a long interregnun?
If so, please explain. If not, please admit.
It is "difficult" [impossible] to trump Divine Law. I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
-
Yes it is lawful (Epikeia) for it defends the common good - it is only dangerous when it no longer defends the common good as judged by GOD. The Spiritual aspect of our faith is being wholly ignored here so it is more of the same. Think about it this way - the entire reason for the Traditional movement is the simple fact that the common good isnt being defended - nor are the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith given man by GOD specifically for his guidance. This is where the judgement lies. No False Shepherd can get away with it for long. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Those are the words of Our Lord. So the real question is not whether or not Epikeia is lawful - the question is whether or not Traditional Bishops use of Epikeia is for the common good in the face of an alternative where following Ecclesiastic Law offers a viable ability to be orthodox. With Modernism infiltrating the hierarchy to such a degree , in my view it is not only prudent but essentially the ONLY Solution. The dangers of following outright Heretics poses the greater danger than following Orthodox Catholic Bishops of good will. The Public and manifest Heresies of those who supposedly hold eccesiastic power poses the greater threat.
Malleus, the application of epieikeia can either be legitimate or not. Because it is a private judgment, it is dangerous. I agree that it can apply to trad priests and bishops. I'll repeat what I just said a few posts back:
An argument can be made for the application of epieikeia to the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, but this merely provides for the necessity of the sacraments, not the power to rule.
Apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.
Malleus : Our disagreement lies here: “The power of naming or instituting bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff (Codex Juris Canonici, 329,2, and 332,1). But, remarks Cajetan in his De Romani Pontificis Institutione (cap. xiii, ad 6), we have to distinguish between the power of the Sovereign Pontiff (auctoritas) and the exercise of this power (executio), which has varied in mode down the centuries.
The Exercise of this power is directly affected by the nature of the Modernist Heresy which has made suspect the legitimacy of the Claimant to the Holy See but in addition the Bishops and so subsequently valid episcopal orders so much so that Apostolic succession in the NO has now come fully into question itself. It cannot help but. Therefore , it would appear your argument is on far more shaky ground due to the public defection and manifest departure from those offices through many an action. Therefore ,since these are most certainly not normal times , Epikeia most certainly can be implemented under Divine law not to usurp a power held only by the Holy See , which I believe your argument is founded on but rather. until the Heresy is ended. The Bishops therefore operate as a titular Bishop would - their ability to act supplied (executio) until the situation is remedied.
pax
In an unrelated matter
It may be interesting to note as well. Do any of you know that Archbishop Thuc was not only present but involved when on November 1 1950 Pope Pius the XII Defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Dogma in Munificentissimus Deus . His name is chiseled in stone along with all the other Bishops who took part in Rome and affixed to a monument in honor of it.
-
The problem here is that facts that have already been established as pertaining to Catholic doctrine are being adjusted to suit the various theories doing the rounds in the present day, rather than the other way around.
This is a problem that I keep seeing within the coteries of certain traditionalist Catholics, and you, SJB and others are seeing this too. It is daunting and terrifying to behold this continue.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such. [emphases mine]
Yes: this is precisely why these labyrinthine theological and Canonical issues have taken on a new and centric importance, together with an ineluctable urgency and relevance; something which may not have been the case decades earlier when early apologists such as Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor were writing against the novelties of the Johannine-Pauline Council, as the theological principles pertinent to such discourse had not been examined in their complexity and profundity as clearly as we do so now.
In the wake of the exceeding great obfuscation consequent upon the Johannine-Pauline construct's wicked pretension to promulgate a nova œconomia that is diametrically contrary and mutually exclusive to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church, certain acephalous clerics and their lay disciples appear to have inaugurated their own ecclesiological œconomia wherein formal Apostolicity and duly sanctioned Canonical missions and offices can somehow exist without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore these selfsame clerics―as a matter of fact, bereft of a Canonical mission together with a duly ordained office, and consequently deprived of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, and thus unable to claim formal Apostolic succession―seem to arrogate to themselves some sort of "extraordinary mission," or tacitly allow their lay disciples to ascribe it to them in neglecting to correct their gross ecclesiological errors.
These clerics are doing more harm than good by neglecting to correct these erring apologists. These Priests and Bishops are especially bound to correct these erring Catholics―whether they err in good will notwithstanding―by reason of the exigencies of fraternal charity and the duties concomitant with the moral virtue of religion: and, above all else, by reason of the grave obligations concomitant with the sacred vocation which these Priests and Bishops have undertook of their own free volition in these tumultuous times (corresponding with the inspirations of divine grace), despite the problematic Canonical ramifications inexorably inherent in this course of action.
If the order of justice and equity cannot be observed literally according to the prescripts and principles of the Sacred Canons, the acephalous clerics must adhere to the greater order of charity with self-effacing magnanimity and relentless self-abnegation, ideally by following the spiritual doctrines set forth by St. Louis-Marie regarding total consecration to Jesus through Mary. However, in order for the order of charity to be observed meritoriously and fruitfully, the reality of things as they are now must be faced and addressed in an earnest and clear manner, according to the doctrines and principles taught by Holy Mother Church as understood by the Roman Pontiffs, Doctors, Fathers, and theologians of times past.
Malleus: John Lane has an interesting opinion as well :
I agree that ordinary jurisdiction is an essential feature of the constitution of the Church. Which means that without it she would not be the Church. Therefore it seems that somewhere in the world there must always be at least one bishop who has it.
Some additional comments on this to put it in context. Anti-sedevacantists often cite this requirement and assert that unless we can identify such a bishop by name our position is essentially in conflict with sound doctrine. But the necessity of identifying such a bishop in fact does not follow - only that we acknowledge that such a bishop or bishops must exist. Just as, for example, it is not required for every Catholic to know many facts about the Church.
What does follow is that if our opponents could prove that there was in fact no such bishop then we would have to revise our theory. The onus is therefore on them, and I welcome any serious attempts they may choose to make to examine the relevant theology, law, and fact, so as to assess the question.
For example, can they be sure that one of the gaoled bishops in China has not remained a Catholic and therefore retained his jurisdiction?
When thinking about this question one must keep in mind the role of supplied jurisdiction in cases of common error. Even many sedevacantists have failed to do so and thus ended up with a slightly skewed view of things. They have done this because, as far as I can tell, they have not understood cuм ex apostolatus correctly, imagining that every provision of it stands, or some erroneous conception such as that. It is doubtful to my mind that even when the bull was published it could have had the effect of nullifying the automatic supply of jurisdiction by Holy Mother Church in cases of common error. I think, on the contrary, that the bull was stating a truth no different from that stated by St. Thomas when he says that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction – meaning, of course, habitual jurisdiction (which is what ordinary jurisdiction is). That is, there is a radical incompatibility between the possession of habitual jurisdiction and the status of non-member of the Church. One must be a member in order to govern in the Church. But (and all theologians seem to grant this) a non-member may exercise supplied jurisdiction on occasion. And this would appear to be the basis for the fairly common opinion that the sacrament of Penance is valid amongst the Greeks.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that an episcopal appointment made by, say, Paul VI, would be valid if the appointee was capable of receiving it. That is, if the appointee was “valid matter” for the appointment. Which is to say, if he was a Catholic. Now, this would have been less likely to be true as the years rolled by after Vatican II. So that fewer and fewer appointments would have been valid, and maybe the last such valid appointment was as long ago as 25 years. But the picture created by such a consideration is very different from the “mathematical” one presented by the sedevacantist who declares that by virtue of cuм ex apostolatus and/or Canon 188:4, every office in the Church was vacated instantly at the close of Vatican II in 1965.
I hope these considerations assist.
We should also not fail to note that the very men who accuse us of holding a theory in conflict with sound doctrine have themselves several points upon which their own stance conflicts with sound doctrine, so that we should give thanks to God that they are coming around to our view on the necessity of believing with the Church. Further, and as a consequence of this new piety on their part, we may look forward to the day when they cease to use as an excuse for being in conflict with Catholic teaching that the point at issue "has never been defined."
Yours,
John Lane.
-
I think you need to read this as well:
Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
(http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=863&start=0)
-
From the link above:
No, but the precise point at issue is:
All jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff to each bishop; it is required by divine law that each bishop receive his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff. This was disputed in the past, but since the teaching of Pius XII it is certain.
History shows us the various means by which this was done in the different ages, but Pope Pius XII seems to instruct us that the only lawful means are those expressly and explicitly approved by the Roman Pontiff. Thus, we would read the history of the early ages as implying that St. Peter had legislated that bishops were to be chosen by the local clergy, consecrated by their neighbouring bishops, and then approved tacitly or explicitly by the Roman Pontiff after the fact. Later, this means was abrogated and each new episcopal appointment was required to be approved in advance of consecration. There are no exceptions to this in the modern era.
An alternative view is that Pius XII does not mean to teach that during an interregnum an appeal to future approval would be unlawful, since it still respects the divine law that all jurisdiction comes from the pope. I agree with John Daly that the texts seem to make this interpretation impossible.
Whether or not we regard this as a "problem" for traditional Catholics depends upon our understanding of what our bishops are for. If they exist in order to provide sacraments (Holy Orders and Confirmation) and do not pretend to be Successors of the Apostles, then the problem would seem to be academic. Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.
And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.
And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders. Perhaps this is one reason there is so much division amongst them.
Perhaps. But I am not really interested in accusing them of anything or even criticising them. I'm just observing that none of them is this thing which is signified by the title, Successor of the Apostles. They don't carry the Apostolic Succession, and however it survives this period, it will not be via these men.
This article has some useful information, and perhaps we can best think of our traditional bishops as quasi-auxiliary bishops (but without mission): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
-
1. Do you agree that Divine Law, which states that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office, is more certain than the supposed teaching at an interregnum can last longer than a certain unspecified amount of time. (The question is almost rhetorical and I hope we can agree on the answer). And if we can agree on the answer the idea of there being a certain limit on an interregnum becomes mute. For if it is certain that a public heretic cannot be Pope then it is certain that an interregnum can last as long as public heretics claim the office.
I will take the above as granted as no one has tried to refute it.
-
I'm still trying to find out where I'll find the Catholic Church?
This leads me to ask, which is it:
Is our Apostolic Church composed of:
1. Heretical invalidly consecrated bishops
2. Heretical validly consecrated bishops (pre-1968)
3. Hidden non-heretical, retired validly consecrated bishops
4. Some of the above.
5. All of the above.
Will anyone please help me on this?
-
When thinking about this question one must keep in mind the role of supplied jurisdiction in cases of common error. Even many sedevacantists have failed to do so and thus ended up with a slightly skewed view of things ...
Be that as it may, it seems to me that an episcopal appointment made by, say, Paul VI, would be valid if the appointee was capable of receiving it.
In this matter, it appears that the usually meticulously careful John Lane does not cite a source in support of what he says, either in the above excerpt or otherwise. Anyone who thinks otherwise is free to correct me here. For, appointment to an episcopal office is not a sacramental action that requires jurisdiction for its completion. How, then, can supplied jurisdiction be said to apply to this case? It appears those other sedevacantists, who maintain in my opinion, more correctly, that only those Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII would qualify as still possesing ordinary jurisdiction. There are several other reasons that can be cited in support of the same conclusion.
Of course that raises practical difficulties for those who espouse such a view, for it is known that only a handful of such Bishops, about 15 or so of them, still exist in the world.
John, I think I have answered one or more of your questions, but if you think otherwise, I will copy and paste the relevant portions of my replies immediately following your seven questions later on.
-
In this matter, it appears that the usually meticulously careful John Lane does not cite a source in support of what he says, either in the above excerpt or otherwise.
Mr. Lane has cited his source for this many times on the Bellarmine Forums. The Catholic University of America Dissertation, Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209. Miaskiewicz, 1940.
-
"Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.
The discussion on this matter is found here:
Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism (http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1202&p=12720&hilit=supplied+jurisdiction#p12720)
-
Nishant Writes: Malleus, it's only to be expected that we would differ in our application of the principles, otherwise there wouldn't be such a multitude of opinions. But so long as we agree on the principles, to me that's good enough. Obviously, I hope we've all considered our own position thoughtfully and prayerfully and hold it because we think, all things considered, it is the best explanation. We can't all be right, but at least we can all either be right or err in good faith.
Malleus: I agree. Keep in mind , the things I post , I post in charity , not to imply that the opinion expressed is the only plausible option. I am of the belief that Traditional Catholics in general do not have an adequate ability to sufficiently answer all of these questions in a definitive , authoritative and lawfully binding manner (although I think some of us may think we can) and as such , we are left with a task of proceeding into , in many cases , unknown territory. Therefore , I believe that some latitude without departing dogmatic precedence is our cross to bear , until such time as this Heresy is defeated. Thank you for your consideration.
Pax
-
Agreed, SJB. I think we see eye to eye on this subject.
The problem here is that facts that have already been established as pertaining to Catholic doctrine are being adjusted to suit the various theories doing the rounds in the present day, rather than the other way around.
John, there are two issues here.
1. Episcopal consecrations performed during an acknowledged interregnum are necessarily incapable of conferring ordinary jurisdiction.
This is so, to use your own term, by "intrinsic necessity". It would be an usurpation of the authority proper to the Pope alone to claim otherwise, and no traditional Bishop I'm aware of has done so. The explanation of Bishop Tissier posted above by SJB is masterful.
2. Ordinary jurisdiction is the formal component (apart from the material succession) and therefore a strict requirement of the note of Apostolicity.
Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.
If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying.
Nishant,
This thread is on the plausibility of perpetual succession.
There is one point I have made that you have neither affirmed or denied and the point gets to the core of the thread, I assume that you either missed the couple of times I have asked this question or you believe the answer is so obvious that it does not warrant a response.
I see you as one who grants valid points of one you disagree with as I have you where I could. So I'll ask this last time and leave it at that whether you respond or not.
Is the Divine Law that holds no public heretic can be Pope more certain than the supposition that there is some limit to the length of an interregnum.
-
When thinking about this question one must keep in mind the role of supplied jurisdiction in cases of common error. Even many sedevacantists have failed to do so and thus ended up with a slightly skewed view of things ...
Be that as it may, it seems to me that an episcopal appointment made by, say, Paul VI, would be valid if the appointee was capable of receiving it.
In this matter, it appears that the usually meticulously careful John Lane does not cite a source in support of what he says, either in the above excerpt or otherwise. Anyone who thinks otherwise is free to correct me here. For, appointment to an episcopal office is not a sacramental action that requires jurisdiction for its completion. How, then, can supplied jurisdiction be said to apply to this case? It appears those other sedevacantists, who maintain in my opinion, more correctly, that only those Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII would qualify as still possesing ordinary jurisdiction. There are several other reasons that can be cited in support of the same conclusion.
Of course that raises practical difficulties for those who espouse such a view, for it is known that only a handful of such Bishops, about 15 or so of them, still exist in the world.
John, I think I have answered one or more of your questions, but if you think otherwise, I will copy and paste the relevant portions of my replies immediately following your seven questions later on.
Malleus : Several Theories abound For example :
" What exactly is the Conciliar church? In order to answer that, let's ask ourselves, when was it founded, when did it appear in public, when did it achieve what many or most sedes assert - control of every see, every building, every "office" of the Church in all of their material elements?
I'd like Gabriele to tell us which Church the members of the hierarchy belonged to in, say, 1962, 1966, 1971, and 1980. Was every see possessed materially or de facto by an official of "the Conciliar church" in 1962? Any of the other dates? If so, on what basis is this assertion made?
The "default" attitude of trads, and especially of sedes, is to regard the entire official structure of the Church as Modernist, and then (perhaps) make exceptions. Even Archbishop Lefebvre adopted that view at least late in his life. And it's a legitimate and useful shorthand for the situation in which we have to live. But the theological, canonical, and properly ecclesiological approach must necessarily be the opposite. We start by adhering to the Catholic Church as it certainly was in 1955, just to pick an arbitrary date, and then we recognise that see after see was occupied by open Modernists as the revolution progressed. But many weren't occupied by open Modernists. Many were retained by what appear to have remained clearly Catholic men, such as Cardinal Siri in Genoa.
I certainly understand that for somebody who believes that Vatican II was manifestly heretical, all who accepted its docuмents as Catholic thereby left the Church, so that apart from Bishop de Castro Mayer perhaps, all sees fell vacant de jure at least in circa 1966. But that's not my view, and I doubt too many others really adopt it either. In any case it means that the hierarchy was extinguished at the latest in 1991 when de Castro Mayer passed away. Such a conclusion is heretical.
What seems to have happened is much more diffcult to explain, much more obscure. It seems apparent that it was possible to accept Vatican II, with reservations (as many bishops did), and even the chief reforms that followed in its wake (e.g. the new liturgy) without thereby leaving the Church. This seems to have been the case with Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and several others at least. Perhaps it was the case with hundreds of bishops. If so, where was "the Conciliar church"?
That's harder to answer, in such a scenario. I have an answer, and I have expressed it many times, over many years, and most recently in my article "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church", but I recognise that it isn't a simple answer. That is, I see that for people who are not familiar with ecclesiology, and with proper distinctions in general, it may not be convincing. "
Again my thanks to John Lane
-
Repost:
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):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3310.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3311.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3312.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3313.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3314.jpg)
-
Repost:
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):
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3307.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3308.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3309.jpg)
-
Another question that has not been answered, as far as I notice is the following:
Where is our apostolic Church if not in our traditional bishops?:
1. The heretical non-bishops in the NO.
2. Any non-heretical non-bishops in the NO.
3. Non-retired valid heretical bishops in the NO.
4. Non-retired valid non-heretical bishops in the NO.
5. Some bishop/s that no one knows about.
Is this really left with our Church? Why are we forced to go with non-Apostolic bishops and be in their Church while being outside the Apostolic Church.
I will add that Lefebvre consecrated bishops against the quite explicit expressed will of one he believed to be a valid Pope which is schismatic on its face.
The SVs disobeyed no one but entirely avoided disobeying anyone they believed to be a valid Pontiff.
-
I may get slammed up and down for this but that is quite okay. I say this not doubting Fenton or Van Noort by any stretch of the imagination. I do not doubt them much more than the infallible pronunciations on "No Salvation Outside the Church". But look at all the confusion on that issue regarding the proper interpretation. In fact if there is no salvation outside the Church we better find ourselves an Apostolic Bishop to be united to before we die huh?
The true Catholics are in this together, SV or not, though some try to split us on the issue when it is obvious that Lefebvre is in just as much "hot water" with the "Apostolic" Church as any traditional bishop. He died excommunicated by that Church did he not? But it is the SVs that have no place to stand? Hmm.
Admitting that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the visibility and apostolicity of the Church is a doctrine is it possible that we may not have interpreted it (the need for a "living" Pope to have approved the consecration of the only orthodox bishops in existence and not hidden somewhere) correctly?
No Dogma has been more clearly pronounced than "No Salvation Outside the Church" yet look how much disagreement is on the interpretation of that Dogma.
We know that Thuc and Lefebvre were validly appointed by a Pope. They were Apostolic and with the Pope and the Catholic Church. They consecrated bishops to keep the Church going, as the Pope who approved of their consecrations and any valid Pope would have them do. Yet we must insist that some living Pope has to have approved of the bishops they consecrated and kept the faith, when none exists in order for the Church to continue in her apostolic form?
I doubt this. The Church never asks the impossible.
What people seem to be insisting on here, is that a Pope must exist in order for the Church to exist. But that is not what the Church has taught. It is an unfortunate circuмstance, that we and our forefathers brought on ourselves but it is not something that is impossible, which is proven by our current circuмstance. What would be impossible, it would seem, would be for God to allow no way for our Church to continue, in the only visible orthodox bishops in existense, during an extended interregnum.
I am also pretty sure there are some disciplinary elements involved in jurisdiction. Yes the bishops get their jurisdiction from a Pope, and they have it, for Pope Pius XII willed the jurisdiction of Thuc, Lefebvre, and the jurisdiction of their successors who held the faith. Did he will that the apostolicity of the Church end and be in a perpetual state of emergency if no Pope were to succeed him? Yes or no? Is that what Christ willed/wills?
Are you really going to insist on that and say we must agree or be heretical?
I agree with all the Church teaches and contradict nothing she teaches. But I cannot let my salvation depend on the interpretation of laymen on a forum.
We do need to go with our formed consciences during this time of no leadership. We lack the theological training to be the infallible interpreters of canon law and even theology manuals on some topics. We seek not the fullness of truth on a forum and from laypeople.
Divine Law is one thing.
But forcing ourselves to accept the interpretation of laymen on forums pertaining to obscure and high-minded theology and canon law, that laypeople never were expected to concern themselves with during normal times is not the way to go.
Others can look to the heretical none-bishops and the old bishop hidden in the woods for the Catholic Church, but from where I sit that Catholic Church is visible and apostolic in her traditional bishops.
I will add that it is good to see charitableness on this forum. It is much better to say "I disagree with such and such for this reason" than to say "so and so is crazy or does not know what he is talking about. . . for this reason."
Again, obvious to the charitable Catholics on the forum.
-
But I cannot let my salvation depend on the interpretation of laymen on a forum.
We do need to go with our formed consciences during this time of no leadership. We lack the theological training to be the infallible interpreters of canon law and even theology manuals on some topics. We seek not the fullness of truth on a forum and from laypeople.
Divine Law is one thing.
But forcing ourselves to accept the interpretation of laymen on forums pertaining to obscure and high-minded theology and canon law, that laypeople never were expected to concern themselves with during normal times is not the way to go.
Others can look to the heretical none-bishops and the old bishop hidden in the woods for the Catholic Church, but from where I sit that Catholic Church is visible and apostolic in her traditional bishops.
I will add that it is good to see charitableness on this forum. It is much better to say "I disagree with such and such for this reason" than to say "so and so is crazy or does not know what he is talking about. . . for this reason."
Again, obvious to the charitable Catholics on the forum. [emphases mine]
Gee, then by positing these things, are you not condemning yourself?
It's funny how you rant on and on and on, ad nauseum, about how laymen on fora are "bad" and yet you still post on CathInfo and other fora (wherein you deign to criticize CathInfo).
It's also curious how you address the "charitable Catholics" on the very forum which you have just anathematized. Have you forgotten what is in your signature?
I am the first to say that we cannot judge anyone's subjective culpability and yet have done so myself, without even realizing it at the time. In my pride I fooled myself into thinking I was willing to sacrifice my reputation for the greater good, when in fact it was my ego and maliciousness that convinced me to do it. The adage, "think before you speak" is a good one.
Why don't you sign up on Bellarmine Forums, where there are sedevacantists who will answer your queries, and stop posting on the very forum which you have consistently criticized both privately and publicly?
I suggest that you follow your own advice and start reading the theology manuals before you present yourself as the exemplar we ought to follow.
You and your friends (whom you deem "charitable Catholics" perhaps) may criticize me all you wish, but I am writing this out of fraternal concern for you, and those who are reading this forum.
-
Thanks, Ambrose and SJB. But the wording expressed there, and I looked up this work for context, seem only to talk of matters like confession and marriage as "jurisdictional acts". It is the same way he refers to the "jurisdictional acts" of other Bishops for example, and, it seems a contradiction to say "jurisdictional acts" can confer the state of habitual jurisdiction itself.
Further, as to whether common error suffices to obtain an episcopal see itself, theologians who have written about the Great schism have implied this is not the case, for they have said the true Pope could proactively have given jurisdiction to those of other obediences if he so chose. But if common error sufficed for the Bishops to legitimately acquire the possession of an episcopal office, there would never have been the need for this, since all of those mistaken were in common error!
Moreover, suppose two Bishops of alternate obediences believed themselves to be succeeding to a single see. To whom would it go, if common error was sufficient? Whereas, if we grant that only the Pope as superior of all and possessor of supreme and universal jurisdiction has the power to assign offices, the difficulty disappears.
While I don't agree with it, I think it is a legitimate and thoughtful response from Mr.Lane to the present crisis.
But in any case, even assuming this is true, and then many more than merely 15 Bishops still retain or occupy a see, this very thesis implies, indeed requires, that all of these Bishops believe that Pope Benedict XVI is Pope. So what Msgr.Noort said would still apply.
And well stated, Malleus. I agree with you. "In necessary things, unity. In doubtful things, liberty. In all things, charity" may not have actually been stated by St.Augustine, but I think there is some truth within those words.
-
Is the Divine Law that holds no public heretic can be Pope more certain than the supposition that there is some limit to the length of an interregnum.
John, you say I haven't answered this question, but I count at least two places in this thread where I think I have.
In any case, you asked me about relative certainties, so here is what I think
There is an absolute incompatibility between heresy and membership in the Church. That public, or at least notorious, heretics are not members of the Church appears theologically certain.
But as compelling as this consideration is, there are some very powerful impelling factors in the other direction as well.
That the Church is Apostolic is de Fide. That Apostolic succession must be both formal and material, and that one alone would not suffice as you seem to maintain, also appears theologically certain. Finally, when Bishops with an office unanimously throughout the world recognize a man as Pope, Msgr. Noort says this recognition pertains to the ordinary and universal magisterium.
There must be a moral certainty in forming a judgment, and because of these factors, I would think the sedevacantist who recognizes it usually has to resort to forming many other hypotheses in addition, and many of these hypotheses, such as sede-impedism or "Bishop in the woods" seem to be the opposite of what is morally certain.
Therefore, in evaluation what level of certainty the sedevacantist hypothesis can claim, it is the combination of these two hypotheses that must be considered, and that appears to me quite uncertain after all. Even more uncertain than my own theories of why Pope Benedict XVI is still Pope.
-
Is the Divine Law that holds no public heretic can be Pope more certain than the supposition that there is some limit to the length of an interregnum.
John, you say I haven't answered this question, but I count at least two places in this thread where I think I have.
In any case, you asked me about relative certainties, so here is what I think
There is an absolute incompatibility between heresy and membership in the Church. That public, or at least notorious, heretics are not members of the Church appears theologically certain.
But as compelling as this consideration is, there are some very powerful impelling factors in the other direction as well.
That the Church is Apostolic is de Fide. That Apostolic succession must be both formal and material, and that one alone would not suffice as you seem to maintain, also appears theologically certain. Finally, when Bishops with an office unanimously throughout the world recognize a man as Pope, Msgr. Noort says this recognition pertains to the ordinary and universal magisterium.
There must be a moral certainty in forming a judgment, and because of these factors, I would think the sedevacantist who recognizes it usually has to resort to forming many other hypotheses in addition, and many of these hypotheses, such as sede-impedism or "Bishop in the woods" seem to be the opposite of what is morally certain.
Therefore, in evaluation what level of certainty the sedevacantist hypothesis can claim, it is the combination of these two hypotheses that must be considered, and that appears to me quite uncertain after all. Even more uncertain than my own theories of why Pope Benedict XVI is still Pope.
Thank you for responding. I do not think, in regards to the Divine Law, that I am asking you about a "relative" certainty, but an absolute certainty, that a public heretic cannot be pope. This is more certain than anything you might bring up that is not a certain as Divine Law which is the most certain thing possible.
I think that is all that needs to be said when speaking about the SV reality. The only sure way out is to deny the Ratzinger is a public heretic.
Do you deny that?
Once we figure that out, we can figure out other things.
Some might say I, as a laymen bind high-minded things on others.
Here are the facts.
1. Regarding what liturgy, between the pre-1955 and the 1958 I have admitted that I am not sure which is the best or (only choice).
2. Regarding the attendance of SVs at an una cuм Ratzinger/heretic Mass, when that is the only Mass reasonably available to them, I have maintained that I am not 100% sure either way, if they could lawfully attend such a Mass in good conscience.
3. Regarding the Traditional Bishops having ordinary jurisdiction, I have repeatedly stated that I am not sure which side is right.
4. The only thing I have claimed to know for sure is that a public heretic cannot be pope and a valid pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful sacraments, an invalid Mass, heretical cannon law on us. There is nothing too complicated about that.
So to say I contradict myself by stating facts and admitting I am not sure of the answer to some contraversies would be incorrect. Further, (obviously this is not in response to you Nischant) I do not engage in mean-spirited attacks as a poster on this thread continues to do. I may have in the past, but not anymore. If there is one thing I have learned from the mean-spirited poster on this thread it is that being uncharitable is not Catholic.
I'll admit that I am somewhat flattered to have my posts so carefully read and taken so seriously by the mean-spirited poster.
But if it is indeed true that bishops are not apostolic unless they have ordinary jurisdiction, which I am starting to believe, then I doubt that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction.
I find it to be absurd to insist that the heretical non-bishops and the bishop in the woods is where our apostolic Church can be found. It is found in our visible orthodox bishops. I maintain that the Church does not insist on the impossible, and to the extent that it seems she does, our interpretation thereof would be at fault, IMO.
Some SVs may indeed insist on the bishop in the woods theory, but I am not one of them. SV and bishop in the woods are not contingent.
What is contingent with SV is the stubborn little fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope or bind on the Church what the conciliar leaders have bound. The conclusion is obvious.
I do not look for my Church in the woods, the catacombs yes, but not in the woods, having no idea, if or where it might be found, nor do I look for it among the heretical non-bishops in new Church. I look for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, right where it is, in the authentic successors of the Apostles, our orthodox Bishops from whom we have the valid Sacraments and the true faith.
If it is proven to my satisfaction that the Church teaches to the contrary, I most readily and happily accept. But I believe if anything is proven in our lifetimes it will be the contrary.
-
Malleus : When Lover of Truth opines: "But if it is indeed true that bishops are not apostolic unless they have ordinary jurisdiction, which I am starting to believe, then I doubt that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction.
I find it to be absurd to insist that the heretical non-bishops and the bishop in the woods is where our apostolic Church can be found. It is found in our visible orthodox bishops. I maintain that the Church does not insist on the impossible, and to the extent that it seems she does, our interpretation thereof would be at fault, IMO.
Some SVs may indeed insist on the bishop in the woods theory, but I am not one of them. SV and bishop in the woods are not contingent.
What is contingent with SV is the stubborn little fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope or bind on the Church what the conciliar leaders have bound. The conclusion is obvious. "
I have a tendency to agree with this portion. IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy. But that isnt what we have today. Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.
To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in. If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion.
When all seems confusing - I simply have to return to Matthew 7 : 15 - 27. We always will have Unity for the Papacy has existed since Our Lord established it - but he established it so that the Church Militant with the Pope and the Assistance of the Holy Ghost will guide Holy Mother the Church in Orthodox Doctrine and unyielding Dogmas unto salvation. When this mission is compromised - then the very reason for that authority is rendered moot. The four marks begin with Unity then Holiness then Apostolicity and then Universality. It is my belief that this order is by design. For without Unity and Holiness - how can any claimant claim Apostolicity?
Pax
-
I cannot agree with you, John, for what you are proposing is unthinkable. For it is the principal error of especially the last 50 years to think that doctrines ought "to be adapted to the circuмstances and needs of our times". Holding that crystal clear formulations of those doctrines by holy and pious minds of the past need to be "reinterpreted" as if they were obscure and in need of less precise and more ambiguous assertions (another absolute favorite of some persons in the last 50 years) and this by the same untrained laymen you talk about today appears to me to be merely another form of this.
By the way, I don't think there was any serious theological controversy on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus even in the last 300 years before the present day, which on the other hand doesn't deserve to be classified as such. All traditional theologians taught baptism of desire and blood as at least theologically certain truths.
Speaking of which, when I mentioned degrees of certainty in different propositions, and the proportionate assent owed to each by the faithful, this was what I had in mind. It's from a sedevacantist site reproducing a traditional work. "Theologically certain", "ecclesiastical faith" etc these are notes describing the varying grades of certainty. Please use the technical terminology so we could understand each other better.
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
As if that were not enough, you would also be at odds with almost every traditional Bishop in the world when you say, "But if it is indeed true that bishops are not apostolic unless they have ordinary jurisdiction, which I am starting to believe, then I doubt that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction."
Please show me which traditional Bishops today even claim they possess ordinary jurisdiction. Even Fr.Cekada does not assert this and frankly knows the opposite is true and takes it as a given.
If people hypothesize various possibilities like a Bishop in the woods today, we could not say with certainty that they are mistaken. But if someone contradicts the Church and says, like Fr.Cekada does, even if not in so many words, that the Church can cease to be Apostolic, it is certain that a position that entails that is incorrect and no Catholic can be morally obliged to hold such a position. If you are saying material succession is sufficient, and the essential form of legitimate authorization from a superior is to be disregarded, I think the same applies.
I would not say this otherwise, but I also think you judge Archbishop Lefebvre very rashly in describing his action as "schismatic on its face" and against what you assert, it could be argued that the very act of attempting to confer ordinary jurisdiction on another Bishop could pertain to the essence of a schismatic act, since it constitutes an usurpation of authority one does not and cannot possess as a mere Bishop.
And this Archbishop Lefebvre never did and was very careful to say so, and all SSPX Bishops have said so, and neither have sedevacantist Bishops at least in the CMRI done so and they know it, but what you are proposing apparently would have me believe they have done so or ought to have done so.
Finally, regarding what you posted about Hobbledehoy, to answer with scripture, no one has made me a judge between you. I don't "take a side" in that matter except to deny your characterization of him in your post toward me because from what I've seen, I can scarcely think of someone less uncharitable than Hobbledehoy, who has freely and graciously taken the time to post countless wondrous spiritual writings on this forum which is of so much more worth to all of us than any theological disputation and I know has proven so edifying to me on many occasions and I'm sure for several other souls, so given what you addressed to me above, I would be remiss in not saying that, for that has only been my honest experience.
-
Finally, regarding what you posted about Hobbledehoy, to answer with scripture, no one has made me a judge between you. I don't "take a side" in that matter except to deny your characterization of him in your post toward me because from what I've seen, I can scarcely think of someone less uncharitable than Hobbledehoy, who has freely and graciously taken the time to post countless wondrous spiritual writings on this forum which is of so much more worth to all of us than any theological disputation and I know has proven so edifying to me on many occasions and I'm sure for several other souls, so given what you addressed to me above, I would be remiss in not saying that, for that has only been my honest experience.
All glory and thanks is to be given to God alone through His Most Holy Mother.
It is frustrating for me to have my endeavors of fraternal correction frustrated again and again, but Matthew has graciously allowed "Lover of Truth" to remain so that the nature of the controversy that divides us may be clearly seen:
1. Regarding what liturgy, between the pre-1955 and the 1958 I have admitted that I am not sure which is the best or (only choice).
2. Regarding the attendance of SVs at an una cuм Ratzinger/heretic Mass, when that is the only Mass reasonably available to them, I have maintained that I am not 100% sure either way, if they could lawfully attend such a Mass in good conscience.
3. Regarding the Traditional Bishops having ordinary jurisdiction, I have repeatedly stated that I am not sure which side is right.
4. The only thing I have claimed to know for sure is that a public heretic cannot be pope and a valid pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful sacraments, an invalid Mass, heretical cannon law on us. There is nothing too complicated about that.
Numbers 1 and 3 have been answered thoroughly by myself, Nishant and others, and the doctrines of the theologians have been shown to you and others.
Some have definitely erred in ascribing to the acephalous clerics of the traditionalist movement ordinary jurisdiction, and you have given at least tacit tolerance to such an error by posting articles and comments (such as those of Mr. Ruby) who clearly propagate such errors.
Regarding the disobedience and crass vilification of the sedevacantist acephalous clerics towards the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Apostolic See under the authority of Pope Pius XII, whom all sedevacantist clerics acknowledge to have reigned as Supreme Pontiff,―and yet categorically accuse the faithful of the SSPX of Gallicanist "pciking and choosing" and implicitly condemn all the faithful who materially adhere to the Johannine-Pauline structures as being members of a "new religion:" I have endeavored to clarify the matter and to posit the pertinent principles, yet you have not brought forth any substantial points against my arguments. Rather, you copy-and-paste the dicta of the clerics who are pertinacious and intransigent in this matter.
Why not consult the CMRI Fathers and ask them what they think of the matter? They do not hold that all these disobedient clerics are to be imputed moral guilt or Canonical censured by operation of the law itself (such as failure to fulfill the Canonical obligation of reciting the Office and offering Holy Mass according to the duly promulgated rubrics in force during the reign of Pope Pius XII), but they do hold that obedience and docility to Holy Mother Church is the best means to preserve the sensus Catholicus. They also abstain from neo-historicist arguments to explain away rubrical anarchy and individualistic autocratic praxes.
Not that I represent the stance of the CMRI Fathers in this matter or any other. It is curious that those who profess themselves as attending CMRI chapels fail to defend the liturgical praxis of the very Priests who administer to them the Sacraments and to whose pastoral care they have entrusted their souls and those of their families.
So to say I contradict myself by stating facts and admitting I am not sure of the answer to some contraversies would be incorrect. Further, (obviously this is not in response to you Nischant) I do not engage in mean-spirited attacks as a poster on this thread continues to do. I may have in the past, but not anymore. If there is one thing I have learned from the mean-spirited poster on this thread it is that being uncharitable is not Catholic. [emphases mine]
I did not say you contradict yourself with what you regard as "facts" but by your continued and incorrigible criticism of this forum (both here and elsewhere on the internet) and the fact that you continue to avail yourself of this very forum to publicize your opinions and to advertise the articles of your friends, such as Droleskey.
I'll admit that I am somewhat flattered to have my posts so carefully read and taken so seriously by the mean-spirited poster.
Please do not misinterpret my fraternal solicitude so as to twist it as a means to satiate the Narcissistic proclivities you seem to exhibit. I endeavor to correct you, as I have endeavored to correct others.
If it is proven to my satisfaction that the Church teaches to the contrary, I most readily and happily accept. But I believe if anything is proven in our lifetimes it will be the contrary.
The behavioral patters you have demonstrated in the past seem to substantiate the contrary.
Remember your signature:
I am the first to say that we cannot judge anyone's subjective culpability and yet have done so myself, without even realizing it at the time. In my pride I fooled myself into thinking I was willing to sacrifice my reputation for the greater good, when in fact it was my ego and maliciousness that convinced me to do it. The adage, "think before you speak" is a good one.
Yet you continue to judge the "subjective culpability" of the "mean-spirited poster" and ostentatiously continue to parrot publicly and privately the Martyr-complex you have somehow developed.
I suggest that you follow your own advice regarding forum and blogs, or at least strive to be more consistent with your own signature.
You and your friends (whom you deem "charitable Catholics" as opposed to the "mean-spirited poster" whom you have convinced these same "charitable Catholics" is out to "get you" simply because you are a "lover of truth") may criticize me unto satiety, but what I write is honestly coming from a sincere concern: not only for you, but for those who stumble upon your posts, and those who view you as an exemplar of piety and theological acuteness. The latter imposes upon you an exceeding great responsibility, for which you will have to answer to God someday.
-
And another opinion I came across:
" Yes, I am sure there are bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction. I am absolutely certain that there are bishops with jurisdiction, but I do not restrict the date to 1968. We have much to thank John Lane for in researching the concept of supplied jurisdiction in the appointments by anti-popes, when they are almost universally accepted, and due to the common error of the act. The sources of these bishops may be:
1. Appointed by Pius XII (habitual jurisdiction of the Pope)
2. Appointed by John XXIII (possibly by habitual jurisdiction, but if not, then by supplied jurisdiction)
3. Appointed by Paul VI (possibly appointed by habitual jurisdiction at least until Dec. 7, 1965, but certainly by supplied jurisdiction). After Dec. 7, 1965, I have no doubt remaining that Paul VI could not have been pope. From Dec. 7, 1965 all bishops appointed by Paul VI who kept the Faith would have been lawful through supplied jurisdiction. (As an aside, for what its worth, I hold John XXIII's claim in extreme doubt, and for myself, I believe Paul VI was never a pope.)
4. The same principle applies to the bishops appointed by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Although bishops in the West, would have lacked validity due to the destruction of the rite, the Eastern Catholic bishops did not have that change.
5. Due to this, we may conclude that any eastern bishops who have the faith, and are recognized by common error of the faithful, may have habitual jurisdiction due to the act of their appointment being supplied.
In regards to all of the men mentioned here, the question which will determine if they are lawful members of the hierarchy is whether they have kept the Faith."
-
I have a tendency to agree with this portion. IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy. But that isnt what we have today. Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.
To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in. If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion. [emphasis mine]
Can you clarify as to why the manner in which I am presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort and other theologians is wrong? Or, rather, how am I exactly presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort?
The pages were not merely cited, but physically scanned and uploaded so that you may read them for yourself.
Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to neo-historicist and novel interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.
It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.
Inadvertently, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.
I am not implying that you yourself (the individual Catholic who posts as "Malleus 01" on CathInfo) have intended to do this, but this certainly has been done by both clerics and laymen in the sedevacantist movement.
The only recourse we have is to study what the theologians have taught as doctrines of Holy Mother Church, if one is to comment at all upon what you regard as minutiae of theological controversy.
As another Catholic has wisely written on this thread:
Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.
If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying. [emphases mine]
The nova œconomia of the Johannine-Pauline modernists cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.
Those who are more puzzled than edified by discussion over theological matters ought to avoid such discussion or refrain from pandering to pedagogues who have arrogated themselves the missio extraordinaria to be the apologists for a faith they do not seem to understand themselves, as shown in the errors they commit. It is best to discuss matters regarding the spiritual life or morality if one cannot handle the complexities and nuances of theological controversy.
By the way, stricte dicitur, this and all other discussion here cannot be regarded as "theological controversy" properly so called, because we are not theologians nor can pretend to come even close.
We are just sharing notes and "thinking out loud" in an endeavor to help each other out in understanding what is presently occurring. No one has all the answers. At least I don't.
Holy Mother Church alone, through the Fathers, Saints and approved theologians, can guide us through this mess precisely because Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted His Church for this very purpose. Just as He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother and illustrious co-Operatrix in the work of the redemption and sanctification of souls, whilst He in His unfathomable omnipotence could have chosen another manner of establishing His œconomy of salvation -- so has Our Lord chosen the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He Himself has established to be our sole illuminatress and mistress in the way of salvation and perfection.
-
I have a tendency to agree with this portion. IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy. But that isnt what we have today. Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.
To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in. If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion. [emphasis mine]
Can you clarify as to why the manner in which I am presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort and other theologians is wrong? Or, rather, how am I exactly presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort?
The pages were not merely cited, but physically scanned and uploaded so that you may read them for yourself.
Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to neo-historicist and novel interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.
It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.
Inadvertently, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.
I am not implying that you yourself (the individual Catholic who posts as "Malleus 01" on CathInfo) have intended to do this, but this certainly has been done by both clerics and laymen in the sedevacantist movement.
The only recourse we have is to study what the theologians have taught as doctrines of Holy Mother Church, if one is to comment at all upon what you regard as minutiae of theological controversy.
As another Catholic has wisely written on this thread:
Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.
To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.
Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such.
If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying. [emphases mine]
The nova œconomia of the Johannine-Pauline modernists cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.
Those who are more puzzled than edified by discussion over theological matters ought to avoid such discussion or refrain from pandering to pedagogues who have arrogated themselves the missio extraordinaria to be the apologists for a faith they do not seem to understand themselves, as shown in the errors they commit. It is best to discuss matters regarding the spiritual life or morality if one cannot handle the complexities and nuances of theological controversy.
By the way, stricte dicitur, this and all other discussion here cannot be regarded as "theological controversy" properly so called, because we are not theologians nor can pretend to come even close.
We are just sharing notes and "thinking out loud" in an endeavor to help each other out in understanding what is presently occurring. No one has all the answers. At least I don't.
Holy Mother Church alone, through the Fathers, Saints and approved theologians, can guide us through this mess precisely because Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted His Church for this very purpose. Just as He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother and illustrious co-Operatrix in the work of the redemption and sanctification of souls, whilst He in His unfathomable omnipotence could have chosen another manner of establishing His œconomy of salvation -- so has Our Lord chosen the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He Himself has established to be our sole illuminatress and mistress in the way of salvation and perfection.
Malleus: Thank you for your interpretation and strong opinion. Unlike Lover of Truth , I do not care to agree or to disagree with the points you have raised. The fulcrum of your entire argument still assumes the presence and orthodoxy of Bishops in the Post Counciliar Church. Msgr Van Noort wrote at a time when this was not an issue. Once again - to assume that a worldwide Modernist Heresy of the very same Type that St Pope Pius the X outlined in Pacendi Domenici Gregis as a danger to the Catholic Faith itself - to see it unfold before our very eyes in living color in the Catholic Hierarchy itself - the manifestations of these very same Heresies , not only present but actually being promoted by a man who claims to sit on the Chair of St Peter - the very same Chair that Pope St Pius the X himself was teaching from - and by those who claim to occupy the various bishoprics throughout the entire world and then to retreat into theology manuals in a vain attempt to explain away the Elephant in the room is naive in my opinion. Scripture does say that some strain the gnat and swallow the camel. And it is for that reason that I feel it sometimes counter productive to take a strong stand like both you and Lover of Truth do.
I am fully aware of your position , Lover of Truths position , Nishants position et al , but really , the issue is never going to lie or be solved with lay interpretation of theology.
This issue remains in the domain of Aceticism and as such , the answers for Traditional Catholics lie there. You can tell me every thing you want to tell me about the writings of Msgr Van Noort - and I enjoy reading your dissertations. But tell me , why did The Cure of Ars , a farmer in his youth , with little formal education , have actual dialogue with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself? Because he fasted , slept on cold stone floors , ate a single potatoe a day , gave away to the poor the possessions of value parishioners gave to him and as a result , became a great and Holy Saint.
My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.
Pax
-
My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.
About what do you disagree? Do you believe these multitude of trad bishops are successors to the Apostles?
-
My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.
About what do you disagree? Do you believe these multitude of trad bishops are successors to the Apostles?
Malleus: If they have Valid Orders and Apostolic Lineage Indeed I do. Our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid . The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel. Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves. I believe that most Traditional Catholics are in fact merely Catholics. That much of this divisiveness is ego driven and not in the spirit of Unity which of course is not in keeping with the Mark of Unity in Holy Mother the Church.
I am certain that this view may be unpopular with some , but then , I am not demanding that anyone follow me in it - but rather that they practice Faith Hope and Charity - receive the Holy Sacraments - Pray the Holy Rosary - Wear the Miraculous Medal - and the Brown Scapular - give to the poor, comfort widows and orphans - the lonely the sick, and the dying, fast , do penance , mortifications , and quit worrying about who is or isn't winning the argument. You see , I am unconcerned with who wins the Hobbledehoy / Lover of Truth argument fest , or in making judgement on which one seems to be on the right course . Can I instead simply say you both have stated your positions well - neither has won anything - both are Catholic - and the progressives , who would like all of us dead regardless of which side of the argument we side with , are daily gaining more and more political power in the world which ultimately may cost all of us our very lives while we quibble about this ? In the grand scheme of things , uniting against them may avert this. So you tell me , which course of action is most prudent?
We are our own worst enemy.
Pax
-
Malleus 01 wrote:
our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid . The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel. Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.
Many heresies and errors throughout the history of the Church were a debate over one words or several words. Words signify a meaning, if the meaning is an error against the purity of the Church's doctrine, then it must rightfully be condemned.
I can see in you that you do not grasp this, and you do not need to understand every fine point of theology to be a good Catholic, but just leave it at this: Apostolic succession must be transmitted through the Pope. By this, we are not talking about the validity of the orders of the bishops, but whether they are the Apostle's successors. There is a difference.
By stating the truth on this matter, we are not acting like Pharisees. The Pharisees placed burdens on others by their harsh ideas, but were soft on themselves, as Our Lord called them hypocrites. In this case, we are Catholics upholding the purity of the deposit of Faith. Second, in this case, no one is denying what we are saying, they are only confused about it. I am not aware of any Catholic that says the traditional bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
-
Malleus 01 wrote:
our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid . The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel. Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.
Many heresies and errors throughout the history of the Church were a debate over one words or several words. Words signify a meaning, if the meaning is an error against the purity of the Church's doctrine, then it must rightfully be condemned.
I can see in you that you do not grasp this, and you do not need to understand every fine point of theology to be a good Catholic, but just leave it at this: Apostolic succession must be transmitted through the Pope. By this, we are not talking about the validity of the orders of the bishops, but whether they are the Apostle's successors. There is a difference.
By stating the truth on this matter, we are not acting like Pharisees. The Pharisees placed burdens on others by their harsh ideas, but were soft on themselves, as Our Lord called them hypocrites. In this case, we are Catholics upholding the purity of the deposit of Faith. Second, in this case, no one is denying what we are saying, they are only confused about it. I am not aware of any Catholic that says the traditional bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
Bishop
Ecclesial office
————
* Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
Bishop (A. S. Bishop, Bisceop, Ger. Bischof; from Gr. episkopos, an overseer, through Lat. episcopas; It. vescovo; O. Fr. vesque; Fr. eveque. See Murray, "New Eng. Dict.", Oxford, 1888, I, 878), the title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope. It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ's will, they are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii. See Apostolic College.)
in Addition :
It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445). Another question also discussed is whether the potestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or of jurisdiction (Sagmiiller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Freiburg, 1900-04, 24-25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers of jurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative, dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers.
Bishops have also a "delegated jurisdiction", which they exercise in the name of the Holy See; this power is granted to them a jure or ab homine. Ecclesiastical law frequently accords to bishops delegated powers; but it would be wrong to say, for instance, that every power of dispensation granted by a general law of the Church is a delegated one. Such power is perhaps quite as often an ordinary power. But when the law accords a power of jurisdiction to the bishop, tanquam Sedis apostolicae delegatus, it is a delegated power that he receives. (See, for example, Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch. i, ii; Sess. VI, De ref., ch. iii; Sess. VII, De ref., ch. vi,. viii, xiv, etc.) Writers do not agree as to the nature of the power accorded to the bishop also as delegate of the Apostolic See, etiam tanquam sedis apostolicae delegatus. Some maintain that in this case the bishop has at the same time both ordinary and delegated power, but only relative to such persons as are subject to his jurisdiction (Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicuм. universum, Paris, 1864, tit. xxix, 37); others contend that in this case the bishop has ordinary jurisdiction with regard to his subjects, and only a delegated one with regard to those who are exempt (Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Berlin, 1869, I, 178; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes, Graz, 1886, I, 421, note 36); others again maintain that the bishop has at the same time both an ordinary and a delegated power over his subjects, and a delegated power over those who are exempt (Wernz, II, 816); finally, others see in this formula only a means of removing any obstacles which might prevent the bishop from using the power accorded to him (Santi, Praelect. jur. can., New York, 1898, I, 259). The delegated powers ab homine are at the present of very great importance, especially in missionary countries. The Apostolic Penitentiary grants those which are only concerned with the forum of conscience. The others are granted by the Congregation of the Propaganda. They are called facultates habituates, because not granted for a determined individual case. These faculties are no longer accorded only to the bishop in his own person but to the ordinaries, that is to say, to the bishop, to his successor, to the administrator pro tem of the diocese, and to the vicar-general, to vicars Apostolic, prefects, etc. (Declaration of the Holy Office, November 26, 1897, April 22, 1898, June 25, 1898, September 5, 1900; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1897-98, XXX, 627, 702; 1898-99, XXXI, 120; 1900-01, XXXIII, 225). As a general rule the bishop can subdelegate these powers, provided that the faculties do not forbid it (Holy Office, December 16, 1898; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1898-99, XXXI, 635). For further information see Putzer-Konings, "Commentarium in facultates apostolicas" (5th ed., New York, 1898). On the other hand, the bishop can always ask the Holy See for such delegated powers as are necessary in the administration of his diocese. The bishop is also the ordinary and habitual executor of the dispensations which the Holy See grants in foro externo, i.e. for public use or application.
Pax
-
It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff.
It's no longer controverted. The question was settled by Pope Pius XII.
-
It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff.
It's no longer controverted. The question was settled by Pope Pius XII.
Which of course is Moot in an Interregnum
-
It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff.
It's no longer controverted. The question was settled by Pope Pius XII.
Which of course is Moot in an Interregnum
No, it is not. It is the teaching of the Church. This has been covered before in great detail.
-
Malleus,
The only traditional bishop I know that claims to be a successor of the Apostles by claiming jurisdiction is Bp. Vezelis, who I think claims jurisdiction over all Catholics in the Eastern U.S., or it may be the whole U.S.
Are you aware of any other traditional bishops who identify themselves as successors of the apostles, and by that claim jurisdiction? If you are, please tell me so I can avoid them.
-
Malleus,
The only traditional bishop I know that claims to be a successor of the Apostles by claiming jurisdiction is Bp. Vezelis, who I think claims jurisdiction over all Catholics in the Eastern U.S., or it may be the whole U.S.
Are you aware of any other traditional bishops who identify themselves as successors of the apostles, and by that claim jurisdiction? If you are, please tell me so I can avoid them.
Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.
-
Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.
Source?
-
Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.
Source?
Fr. Cekada has said so, and he promotes his masses as "episcopally approved."
-
Bp. Daniel L. Dolan believes he's a successor to the apostles.
Source?
Fr. Cekada has said so, and he promotes his masses as "episcopally approved."
Well, if he really believes this, I guess he and Bp. Vezelis have a problem! Their jurisdictional areas overlap each other.
-
Malleus 01 wrote:
our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid . The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel. Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.
Many heresies and errors throughout the history of the Church were a debate over one words or several words. Words signify a meaning, if the meaning is an error against the purity of the Church's doctrine, then it must rightfully be condemned.
I can see in you that you do not grasp this, and you do not need to understand every fine point of theology to be a good Catholic, but just leave it at this: Apostolic succession must be transmitted through the Pope. By this, we are not talking about the validity of the orders of the bishops, but whether they are the Apostle's successors. There is a difference.
By stating the truth on this matter, we are not acting like Pharisees. The Pharisees placed burdens on others by their harsh ideas, but were soft on themselves, as Our Lord called them hypocrites. In this case, we are Catholics upholding the purity of the deposit of Faith. Second, in this case, no one is denying what we are saying, they are only confused about it. I am not aware of any Catholic that says the traditional bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
This exactly what I have been attempting to convey, but to no avail it seems. I was just about to scan and upload more pages from another theological work, but it seems people will explain the doctrines of the theologians regarding the nature of the Church somehow anyways.
The fulcrum of your entire argument still assumes the presence and orthodoxy of Bishops in the Post Counciliar Church. Msgr Van Noort wrote at a time when this was not an issue. Once again - to assume that a worldwide Modernist Heresy of the very same Type that St Pope Pius the X outlined in Pacendi Domenici Gregis as a danger to the Catholic Faith itself - to see it unfold before our very eyes in living color in the Catholic Hierarchy itself - the manifestations of these very same Heresies , not only present but actually being promoted by a man who claims to sit on the Chair of St Peter - the very same Chair that Pope St Pius the X himself was teaching from - and by those who claim to occupy the various bishoprics throughout the entire world and then to retreat into theology manuals in a vain attempt to explain away the Elephant in the room is naive in my opinion. Scripture does say that some strain the gnat and swallow the camel.
You do not seem to understand my arguments, which have nothing to do with the status of the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church. Never have I posited the hierarchy of such a structure as an alternative throughout this discussion.
I am fully aware of your position , Lover of Truths position , Nishants position et al , but really , the issue is never going to lie or be solved with lay interpretation of theology.
You are not fully aware of my position, as I have written above. You claim that the "lay interpretation of theology" is not going to do any good towards answering the pertinent questions, and yet you have quoted an internet transcript of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: a transcript the accuracy for which you cannot vouch, unless you have the actual tomes to cite from thence. And this without realizing that the Encyclopedia's information has been rendered moot by the teachings of the theologians as confirmed by Pope Pius XII.
And then you answer SJB's refutation by a blank statement about the interregnum: did Catholics of ages past ever inaugurate novelties and took the doctrines and decrees of Holy Mother Church as they deemed fit whensoever the Apostolic See was vacant?
You may answser in turn that this is because of the times, new problems, unprecedented crises, etc. So that, in turn, calls for Catholics to adopt the evolutionist and Hegelian methodologies wherewith the modernists have profaned and transgressed the doctrines and decrees of Holy Mother Church? Do you not see how problematic this is?
This issue remains in the domain of Aceticism and as such , the answers for Traditional Catholics lie there. You can tell me every thing you want to tell me about the writings of Msgr Van Noort - and I enjoy reading your dissertations. But tell me , why did The Cure of Ars , a farmer in his youth , with little formal education , have actual dialogue with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself? Because he fasted , slept on cold stone floors , ate a single potatoe a day , gave away to the poor the possessions of value parishioners gave to him and as a result , became a great and Holy Saint.
And because he did so especially by docility to the magisterium and primacy of the Apostolic See, and converting sinners away from the road to perdition and to the narrow path of salvation and Evangelical perfection, in accordance to his sacred vocation and duly given mission. Without submission to the Church, there is no such thing as true sanctity. For even amongst the Jansenists and Buddhists, there are ascetics who would put us to shame in the practice of self-abnegation at the natural level.
My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.
And in this we do agree, because apparently you are not understanding what I am attempting to convey to you.
Better to cease discussion and devote ourselves to prayer, but I cannot in good conscience pray and be at ease whilst I know my brethren are lured by error and proximate occasions of heresy, and keep silence.
-
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep4str.htm
-
People are trying to read my inner intentions for sharing things, "he's promoting his friends" or whatever.
I'm not sure what anyone is trying to accomplish when they take cracks at why I post what I post. If I was an objective observer, I would figure that it was because I had truth, and wanted to share it, and I believe others can state it far better than I can. But you can think as you wish, the facts stay the same.
If you want to disagree with the only traditional Priest with a doctorate in theology you can. I don’t. Besides, you have to get around that uncomfortable (for some) indisputable fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope and that Popes cannot bind what the false Popes have bound these past 50 years:
Note: Father Stépanich is a Franciscan priest who was ordained in 1941 and who holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University. He has never offered the New Mass and over the years has carried on an extensive apostolate of correspondence with Catholics who resist the Vatican II errors.
The following letters are his response to an objection one frequently hears made against sedevacantism.
* * * * *
November 30, 2002
Dear Correspondent:
You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”
You, understandably, wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.
The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.
Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?
You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes. You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter. That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died. This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.
But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.
You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.”
Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.
Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.
That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.
Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected. And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”
Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.
So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.
What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.
Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy. But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.
We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight. But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.
If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope. God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.
God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.
Nothing is impossible with God.
Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
* * * * *
March 25, 2003
Dear Faithful Catholic:
Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.
Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.
But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecuмenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002. Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”
Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.
Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end. Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there. They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes. But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I. It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”
Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes. Their imagination has gotten them into an impossible situation. They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope. At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope. They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.
Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.
But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I. You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be. You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.
Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair. The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man. To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself.
Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
----
-
Section 343 III
Could that be devoid on exigency circuмstance outlined in the Code of Canon Law 1983 and which is used by SSPX to explain 1988 consecrations?
assume so.....
Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:
We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.
From Fideliter:
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)
Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."
Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circuмstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.
Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?
Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...
Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.
-
Section 343 III
Could that be devoid on exigency circuмstance outlined in the Code of Canon Law 1983 and which is used by SSPX to explain 1988 consecrations?
assume so.....
Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:
We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.
From Fideliter:
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)
Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."
Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circuмstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.
Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?
Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...
Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.
Where does the above affirm or deny that bishops consecrated during past interregnums were apostolic?
-
Define "apostolic."
-
Define "apostolic."
A Catholic Bishop in every sense of the word. Having the same authority as those consecrated during none-interregnums.
-
Define "apostolic."
A Catholic Bishop in every sense of the word. Having the same authority as those consecrated during none-interregnums.
Should read "having the same authority as those bishops consecrated during past interregnums".