Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 15856 times)

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

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

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

Not because public heretics can be Pope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Nishant

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Nishant

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

pax

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

Quote from: Malleus 01

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

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

pax

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

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

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 22, 2012, 05:19:23 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Malleus 01
Malleus: All fine and good in the context of normal times - it is rather imprudent and rash to assume that epikeia is only in the domain of jurisdiction in an ecclesiastic sense , when in fact it is employed under Divine Law .

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

pax

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

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

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

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #51 on:** August 22, 2012, 06:54:49 PM »

Quote from: Malleus 01

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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:

Quote from: John Lane

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #52 on:** August 22, 2012, 11:40:03 PM »

Quote

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:19:55 AM »

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.

Quote from: The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:28:22 AM »

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.

Quote

"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,

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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,

Quote

"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.

Quote

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".

Quote

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.

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.