Author Topic: Challenge to Griff Ruby (Read 9266 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** October 08, 2015, 07:42:42 AM »

Griff,

You maintain that the traditional Catholic clergy are the hierarchy yet the seemingly most knowledgeable people among us like John Lane and John Daly beg to differ.

They claim (I think, please correct me if I am wrong anyone) that the traditional clergy are not the hierarchy because:

1. The traditional clergy do not have the Papal mandate

2. They have not be appointed to a canonical office.

3. They have not been assigned to a territory.

What say you Griff?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2015, 07:09:14 AM »

I believe Griff is too busy to respond. I'll give my less informed response and see if we can get clarity, another forum keeps locking the thread before it can get off the ground. I want those to participate who are not wed to their opinion but are open to truth and willing to grant any legitimate point the other side makes. This is not about winning an argument but discerning the truth.

To make the debate clear we need to define certain terminology. The crux of the dilemma comes down to where the Church is. We all agree that there must be one valid formal successor to the Apostles with habitual jurisdiction (over his flock?). But I want to make sure we have the terminology correct before we debate so we all (supposing anyone even participates) know what we are talking about.

We are speaking of "hierarchical Bishops" which are:

Apostolic Successors (formal)

with

Ordinary jurisdiction

Am I correct the the hierarchy must have the above two qualifications to qualify?

Can someone give me a definition of "Apostolic Successors" and "Ordinary jurisdiction" an exact meaning describing with this is in regards to the visible hierarchy of the Church?

My response to the common objection that the hierarchy is not composed of, at least in part, of the [traditional] Catholic clergy we are aware of and utilize for the Sacraments who are unquestionably validly consecrated and ordained, profess the faith and are willing to submit to any valid ecclesiastical authority is as follows:

The Papal mandate has been implicit in the past why what definitive proof is there that it is not implicit now?

The fact that they have not been appointed to an ecclesiastical office (if in fact this is the case) is ecclesiastical law meant for normal times.

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

Okay please verify or straiten me out.

Catholics of good will need to come to the truth on this issue as mistaken views lead to people depriving themselves of the Sacraments (Home Alonism) or being scared back into the Novus Ordo.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:43:15 AM »

Does Griff Ruby even post here?

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2015, 10:01:27 AM »

Is there a Catholic source that says ordinary jurisdiction is obtained by being consecrated by a bishop with a papal mandate?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:20:27 AM »

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html

(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).

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).

As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).

Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:40:06 AM »

I am very pleased that some are posting here. I do hope this thread is still alive when I come back Tuesday morning.

I believe Griff has only posted once in the history of Cath Info, I'm hoping he will again but am not sure if he will.

I have once question to ask before I go before I post again on Tuesday.

Did the traditional Catholic community which we are a part of start from scratch or did it continue the Catholic Church?

Please give reasons, especially pertaining to Divine Law as to why the traditional Catholic clergy which we are familiar with cannot be the Catholic hierarchy.

Thanks again for posting here. I hope this thread is rather interesting when I come back and I hope Griff will accept my challenge.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:43:00 AM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino

Is there a Catholic source that says ordinary jurisdiction is obtained by being consecrated by a bishop with a papal mandate?

Good question. I'm looking for the answers. Not pretending to know them. That is also why I want to be clear with the terminology.

What does the papal mandate provide?

Formal Apostolicity? When I first looked into this issue the big objection against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being the hierarchy is because they did not have the Papal mandate. Does anyone know what that objection is based upon?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:45:18 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html

(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).

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).

As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).

Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).

Does this speak for or against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being a part of the hierarchy? If so can you please elaborate. I am not well versed in this but desperately would like to learn. It might take some patience as you wait for me to grasp some points.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:40:25 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html

(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).

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).

As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).

Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).

Does this speak for or against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being a part of the hierarchy? If so can you please elaborate. I am not well versed in this but desperately would like to learn. It might take some patience as you wait for me to grasp some points.

Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.

Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.

Quote

As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]

Matto · « **Reply #9 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:43:05 PM »

LOT, I don't think Griff Ruby posts here. I suggest you go to http://tedeum.boards.net/ and post your challenge there because I know that he posts on that forum. I believe his username is ubipetrus or something like that.

Matto · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:59:04 PM »

Over on that forum he is involed in a continuous argument over the same question you brought up here with other posters there so you could join in on the fun.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:37:37 PM »

I think I will be posting here now more. It has become clear to me that, while there are some sincere souls who seem at least somewhat open to the truth, there are far too many outright heretics who are so committed to their Church-denying error and who keep dominating and ruining threads through sheer numbers of them, not with meaningful challenges based on doctrinal sources, but with absurd ipse dixits which they continually expect people to just accept as being with some sort of magisterial authority (even while denying such authority even exists - go figure).
All I can hope is that here the inquiry will be more free and open than it was on Te Deum (or might I say "tedium" for proving the obvious over and over again has become tedious and perhaps even somewhat counterproductive as it brings out all the paid Novus Ordo trolls who actually no more believe what they are posting than I do).

ubipetrus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:55:42 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.

Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.

Quote
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]

Yes, it is a docuмented fact that each of Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre (and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez Y Gonzales) went to great lengths to insure that far more than a mere materially valid succession would be transmitted to the bishops they consecrated for the good (and whole future) of the Church. The St. Gelasius quote is certainly a good one, and one which reminds us of something so basic that some have forgotten it.

The teaching of the Church is quite decidedly on the side of the apostolic authority of our familiar traditional clerics, for the alternatives are truly unacceptable, doctrinally speaking (Church no longer exists, Church hidden in an invisible manner within the Novus Ordo, Church existing only in unknown and remote "forgotten" corners of the earth which no one can find, Church relegated to what few areas an Indult or Motu "Extraordinary form" might be permitted, Novus Ordo apparatus as the Church in any sense, etc.)

The following docuмent actually constitutes a "crash course" in all the relevant ecclesiological doctrines which despite the denials of some still apply to our age as they must indeed apply to all ages, no matter how difficult: http://www.the-pope.com/blog.pdf
I'd like to see if anyone else can come up with an ecclesiology which fits to the eternal ecclesiological doctrines, the recent and current historical facts (Vatican II, etc.), and can also explain how the Church still existed as a visible and Catholic society, bearing all four marks, throughout this whole period.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2015, 01:26:10 PM »

Well, it finally happened. The other forum has finally marked itself as being non-Catholic. The heretics have completely taken over there. Oh well, time to shake the dust off my feet.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2015, 06:10:21 AM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.

Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.

Quote
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]

Yes, it is a docuмented fact that each of Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre (and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez Y Gonzales) went to great lengths to insure that far more than a mere materially valid succession would be transmitted to the bishops they consecrated for the good (and whole future) of the Church. The St. Gelasius quote is certainly a good one, and one which reminds us of something so basic that some have forgotten it.

The teaching of the Church is quite decidedly on the side of the apostolic authority of our familiar traditional clerics, for the alternatives are truly unacceptable, doctrinally speaking (Church no longer exists, Church hidden in an invisible manner within the Novus Ordo, Church existing only in unknown and remote "forgotten" corners of the earth which no one can find, Church relegated to what few areas an Indult or Motu "Extraordinary form" might be permitted, Novus Ordo apparatus as the Church in any sense, etc.)

The following docuмent actually constitutes a "crash course" in all the relevant ecclesiological doctrines which despite the denials of some still apply to our age as they must indeed apply to all ages, no matter how difficult: http://www.the-pope.com/blog.pdf
I'd like to see if anyone else can come up with an ecclesiology which fits to the eternal ecclesiological doctrines, the recent and current historical facts (Vatican II, etc.), and can also explain how the Church still existed as a visible and Catholic society, bearing all four marks, throughout this whole period.

Thank you Griff for posting here. I for one can not come up with an ecclesiology that teaches that our hierarchy must be those who are not the Catholic clergy we are aware of.