Author Topic: Challenge to Griff Ruby (Read 9269 times)

ubipetrus · « **Reply #30 on:** October 19, 2015, 01:45:27 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me. I have not read on the topic either way however. Can you help me with this?

There can't be any intrinsic reason. First of all there were the Apostles. Granted, they were in a very special category, but still, what exclusive territories did any of them ever lay claim to? But then Abbots and others who are bishops over religious orders and the like are also treated like apostolic bishops, normally included in Councils, able to serve as consecrators or co-consecrators of bishops, etc.
Now, auxiliaries are normally given a "titular" diocese, which is one which effectively no longer exists (speaks for the Church in some area where the Church is extinct or at least very nearly so, but also as the product of the splitting and combining of diocesan territories. However, though such auxiliaries go back to the beginning, the lack of any (or enough, once there were actually a few) "titular" dioceses to go around did not stop such auxiliaries from existing or functioning as assistant bishops to some existing bishop who actually ruled the diocese as its last authority (other than the Pope).
Territory is just so strongly entrenched in the practice of the Church that some may simply have forgotten that, as you point out, true jurisdiction is over souls, not land, and that land is merely a simple and practical way to delineate among souls on the arbitrary criteria of where they live.
You often ask about what would happen to all the dioceses if we all had to transfer to another planet. By the same token, suppose the Pope, the cardinals, and bishops were convened in Council, and a nuclear bomb blows it all up, killing everyone present. Then the only bishops left would be some scattered few who were out sick in hospitals or else fading in retirement homes as retired bishops invited to come but who opted not to owing to their declining health. Perhaps there might be only a very few of these, and none or almost none of them aware of any of the other survivors like them. Could the Church continue from that, or would it all be over? Would anyone seriously dispute the duties of the few survivors, even though they be retired, of ill-health, and scarcely able to do much more than find some priest they trust (hopefully rightly) to make a bishop of, probably even unilaterally (no co-consecrators)?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2015, 02:03:18 PM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me. I have not read on the topic either way however. Can you help me with this?
There can't be any intrinsic reason. First of all there were the Apostles. Granted, they were in a very special category, but still, what exclusive territories did any of them ever lay claim to? But then Abbots and others who are bishops over religious orders and the like are also treated like apostolic bishops, normally included in Councils, able to serve as consecrators or co-consecrators of bishops, etc.
Now, auxiliaries are normally given a "titular" diocese, which is one which effectively no longer exists (speaks for the Church in some area where the Church is extinct or at least very nearly so, but also as the product of the splitting and combining of diocesan territories. However, though such auxiliaries go back to the beginning, the lack of any (or enough, once there were actually a few) "titular" dioceses to go around did not stop such auxiliaries from existing or functioning as assistant bishops to some existing bishop who actually ruled the diocese as its last authority (other than the Pope).
Territory is just so strongly entrenched in the practice of the Church that some may simply have forgotten that, as you point out, true jurisdiction is over souls, not land, and that land is merely a simple and practical way to delineate among souls on the arbitrary criteria of where they live.
You often ask about what would happen to all the dioceses if we all had to transfer to another planet. By the same token, suppose the Pope, the cardinals, and bishops were convened in Council, and a nuclear bomb blows it all up, killing everyone present. Then the only bishops left would be some scattered few who were out sick in hospitals or else fading in retirement homes as retired bishops invited to come but who opted not to owing to their declining health. Perhaps there might be only a very few of these, and none or almost none of them aware of any of the other survivors like them. Could the Church continue from that, or would it all be over? Would anyone seriously dispute the duties of the few survivors, even though they be retired, of ill-health, and scarcely able to do much more than find some priest they trust (hopefully rightly) to make a bishop of, probably even unilaterally (no co-consecrators)?

Thanks Griff. It makes perfect sense.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #32 on:** October 19, 2015, 02:34:47 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me.

In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law

Matto · « **Reply #33 on:** October 19, 2015, 02:38:57 PM »

I wonder what Matthew will think of Griff Ruby's views on this issue. Arguing these same views was what got him banned from Te Deum.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #34 on:** October 20, 2015, 05:19:31 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I wonder what Matthew will think of Griff Ruby's views on this issue. Arguing these same views was what got him banned from Te Deum.

Matthew unlike those on the other forum is intellectually honest and not a tyrant so if he saw something clearly wrong, or something he believed to be clearly wrong he would point it out and back up the contrary with an authoritative source.

If Feeneyism is okay and either side of SV is not banable why would the idea of the Catholic bishops that remained after V2 being the ones that continued the Catholic Church in all her integrity be banable?

ubipetrus · « **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2015, 09:50:59 PM »

And by the way, I also consider the SSPX bishops to be real and apostolic bishops of the Church, which is (as I believe someone else once docuмented) also the belief of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais - good for him! So if Matthew were to take exception to the position of (at least) one of his own most respected bishops, that really would be something strange.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2015, 08:28:03 AM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

And by the way, I also consider the SSPX bishops to be real and apostolic bishops of the Church, which is (as I believe someone else once docuмented) also the belief of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais - good for him! So if Matthew were to take exception to the position of (at least) one of his own most respected bishops, that really would be something strange.

It seems the common sense idea that the Bishops who stayed Catholic after V2 continued the Church in all her integrity does not have much opposition here. No one has been called a heretic or banned for being open to such a possibility or believing it.

Some place you are banned for lesser things even though it is very clear you will accept whatever the Church teaches so long as you are convinced the Church does in fact teach it.

That is rather encouraging in comparison to previous encounters.

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #37 on:** October 23, 2015, 01:02:55 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Lover of Truth
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me.

In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law

The difficulty with proposing that supplied jurisdiction resolves the issue is that supplied jurisdiction is not habitual and doesn't give a person true possession of an ecclesiastical office. It's supplied to a person for particular actions at the moment it is needed. The person to whom it's supplied doesn't possess it any time before or after that.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 25, 2015, 10:42:44 AM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino

The difficulty with proposing that supplied jurisdiction resolves the issue is that supplied jurisdiction is not habitual and doesn't give a person true possession of an ecclesiastical office. It's supplied to a person for particular actions at the moment it is needed. The person to whom it's supplied doesn't possess it any time before or after that.

Supplied jurisdiction does have a lasting effect, though the person exercising a juridical act under its terms didn't possess a lasting (or "habitual") jurisdiction. Picture someone coming to a priest without the necessary applicable "faculties" for confession and absolution. For the one act of the absolution the priest exercises a jurisdiction (supplied) which he dos not otherwise possess, and which disappears the moment the absolution is completed. However, for the penitent who was absolved, the forgiveness lasts, and the state of grace in his soul remains, exactly as with any confession and absolution, for however long he does not fall into serious sin.

It is one thing for a priest or bishop to be without any jurisdiction or faculties, such that every juridical act they do requires this momentary jurisdiction they can use but cannot keep. But if it were a matter of the jurisdiction being supplied for someone to appoint and ordain/consecrate a man to an office over some particular group of Catholics, the office once granted would be habitual, and its authority and jurisdiction habitual, even though the authority to confer it were supplied to the one granting it and disappeared upon the completion of that conferral.

So, just as the power to forgive the sin disappeared upon its forgiveness and absolution, the power to appoint and ordain/consecrate to an office might also disappear upon the completion of the conferral of that office, but the sin remains forgiven, and the office remains continually (or "habitually") held, and would only be lost through some subsequent legitimate act to remove the person or because of heresy or other resignation, even as the sin remains forgiven until a new sin is committed.

When Bp. Tissier de Mallerais wrote about supplied jurisdiction in connection with his apostolicity as a true bishop of the Church, this pertained, not to his individual juridical acts as a bishop (as if he were not in fact apostolic), but the jurisdiction by which Abp. Lefebvre and de Castro-Meyer consecrated him and made him one of the bishops over the SSPX, a perpetual and habitual office held by him. If there were no pope (as we sedevacantists already believe), then the right to have consecrated the bishops was absolute, legally speaking. But in the presence of one taken as "pope," and furthermore having to act against his apparent wishes (for John Paul II being in the state that he was could not be regarded as being "of sound mind and body" and was plainly acting against the good of the Church), this becomes a much more sticky legal situation - imagine having to prove in a court of law that John Paul II was not in a sane or right or papal state of mind when he refused permission to Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate the bishops, I think it could be done and would be right and just, but these things can be quite subjective and subject to a jury's whims - and hence quite properly a matter of "doubt of law or of fact." Supplied jurisdiction resolves this doubt in favor of the SSPX bishops, meaning that they are truly apostolic and possess habitual jurisdiction.

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2015, 01:16:47 PM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

But if it were a matter of the jurisdiction being supplied for someone to appoint and ordain/consecrate a man to an office over some particular group of Catholics, the office once granted would be habitual, and its authority and jurisdiction habitual, even though the authority to confer it were supplied to the one granting it and disappeared upon the completion of that conferral.

So, just as the power to forgive the sin disappeared upon its forgiveness and absolution, the power to appoint and ordain/consecrate to an office might also disappear upon the completion of the conferral of that office, but the sin remains forgiven, and the office remains continually (or "habitually") held, and would only be lost through some subsequent legitimate act to remove the person or because of heresy or other resignation, even as the sin remains forgiven until a new sin is committed.

In this hypothesis, are bishops being supplied the power to make new offices?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** November 09, 2015, 01:36:32 PM »

I thought these articles were interesting:

http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm

http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2015, 02:51:24 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I thought these articles were interesting:

http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm

http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html

These articles are valuable, but they don't address, or propose, the creation of offices.

Gregory I · « **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2015, 06:05:38 PM »

Quote

Territorial jurisdiction is not Divine Law. Their jurisdiction is over souls and not land with boundaries.

Okay please verify or straiten me out.

That makes sense, because Christ didn't carve out the earth for each apostle before he ascended. Therefore, it cannot be a matter of Divine law, but of Canon law, regarding hierarchical territories. Or custom.

Cantarella · « **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2015, 08:00:22 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law

Supplied jurisdiction only happens when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties. For example, in the case of someone receiving the Sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, only then the Church would supply it.

Formal succession requires communion with the Roman Pontiff so even if a Bishop receives valid orders materially, he does not receive them formally. As said before, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a monarchy; not an oligarchy. The Bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese (territory) unless the Pope places him there. Only the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, can govern by "immediate divine right". Wherever and whenever a Bishop gains authority, it is the Pope who grants it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #44 on:** November 09, 2015, 08:16:16 PM »

From the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII:

The Dictates of the Pope

Quote

1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.

2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.

3.That he alone can depose or reinstate Bishops.

4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

5.That the pope may depose the absent.

6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.

7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.

8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.

9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.

11.That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.

12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.

14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.

15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.

16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.

17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.

18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.

19.That he himself may be judged by no one.

20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.

21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.

22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.

24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.

25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.

26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.

27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.