Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16219 times)

SJB · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:33:10 PM »

Quote from: ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887

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.

Belloc · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:40:24 PM »

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.....

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2012, 02:39:24 PM »

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

SJB · « **Reply #58 on:** August 23, 2012, 04:23:11 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

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.....

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #59 on:** August 23, 2012, 05:11:02 PM »

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.

Quote

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.