Author Topic: An Objection to Sedevacantism: Perpetual Successors to Peter (Read 16231 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #80 on:** August 25, 2012, 09:12:37 AM »

Quote from: Malleus, quoting John Lane,

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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #81 on:** August 25, 2012, 02:47:15 PM »

Quote

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.

SJB · « **Reply #82 on:** August 25, 2012, 04:00:25 PM »

Quote

"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

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #83 on:** August 27, 2012, 02:52:56 PM »

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

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #84 on:** August 29, 2012, 12:12:21 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.