Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on February 01, 2016, 03:10:10 PM
-
As of 1 Feb 2016 there remain only five living bishops who were consecrated during the reign of Pope Pius XII (who died on 9 Oct 1958)
-
Of course, this only applies to those who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope. Sedevacantists disagree as to which pope was the last valid one.
But for those who subscribe to certain extreme forms of sedevacantism/ecclesiavacantism -- basically home aloners who believe we can't get into any "lifeboats" or consecrate bishops without papal authority -- the clock is ticking.
I use this as evidence for why the position is stupid.
-
P.S. Isn't it strange that 3 of the 5 oldest bishops are from South America? And NONE are from the United States or Europe? For some reason, you just don't live as long in those countries. Interesting...
These 5 men have been BISHOPS for anywhere from 57 to 61 years. Incredible!
So they were consecrated when Bishop Williamson (the oldest of the +Lefebvre line bishops) was 14 to 18 years old.
The youngest of the +Lefebvre bishops, Bishop Fellay, was born 12 Apr 1958. So +Fellay was only 15 days old when the youngest of these 5 bishops was consecrated. The other 4 have been BISHOP longer than +Fellay has been alive!
And remember that +Fellay was consecrated at age 30.
-
To my understanding, it is only a tiny minority within the sedevacantes that believe that it was only the Pius XII consecrated Bishops that are valid bishops.
What sedevacantes and non-sedevacantes believe, is that the bishops consecrated in the new rite, post 1970, are not valid bishops, and therefore, neither are the priests they ordain priests. There still are a few pre-new rite bishops around today.
I for one take no chances, I only go with priests ordained by the SSPX bishops.
Can you post that list till like 1968?
-
.
MATTHEW:
Tradhican is asking you to please post this list showing bishops consecrated up to 1968:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=8258)
To my understanding, it is only a tiny minority within the sedevacantes that believe that it was only the Pius XII consecrated Bishops that are valid bishops.
What sedevacantes and non-sedevacantes believe, is that the bishops consecrated in the new rite, post 1970, are not valid bishops, and therefore, neither are the priests they ordain priests. There still are a few pre-new rite bishops around today.
I for one take no chances, I only go with priests ordained by the SSPX bishops.
Can you post that list till like 1968?
.
-
In mission countries men were often consecrated VERY YOUNG, just a couple years after ordination ... in order to help meet the needs of the faithful across sparsely populated regions. They had the energy to do this work. Also, they seemed to do this more in Latin America as well. That's where most of the oldest bishops come from; a couple were Jesuits who worked clandestinely behind the Iron Curtain (like "Ambrose" LOL) and these too were consecrated very young.
If you look at Oldest bishops (vs. years of consecration) the currently-oldest bishop alive is an American (though the name looks foreign ... perhaps son of immigrants).
-
I don't actually have that list. Someone e-mailed it to me.
Perhaps it's available online? I haven't even tried to Google search for it.
I do know that I've seen it before, and that last time there were significantly more bishops on the list. I don't remember what month/year it was. CathInfo has so many posts that it's pretty well buried.
UPDATE: Here is where it was taken from:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html)
-
There's about 100 bishops there to 1969. I checked the ages of the youngest which I assumed would be all those consecrated in 1969 and they were all 80-90,
Only one 80 and one 90, the average about 85 maybe 86. They could all be gone in a few years.
-
Of course, this only applies to those who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope. Sedevacantists disagree as to which pope was the last valid one.
But for those who subscribe to certain extreme forms of sedevacantism/ecclesiavacantism -- basically home aloners who believe we can't get into any "lifeboats" or consecrate bishops without papal authority -- the clock is ticking.
Matthew, God bless you and yours.
You describe an extreme form of sede vacante, home aloners; Some that reject the SSPX and CMRI bishops? These could be compared to an extreme form of novus ordo, modernists, who dismiss the SSPX and CMRI bishops.
If so, there might then be a middle ground, a lesser extreme form of sede vacante that recognize the SSPX and CMRI bishops. In the same manner (from my perspective), one might imagine a less extreme form of novus ordo with (pre-vatican2 rite) bishops, say for example the SSPX.
So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation. The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.
-
Of course, this only applies to those who believe that Pope Pius XII was the last pope. Sedevacantists disagree as to which pope was the last valid one.
But for those who subscribe to certain extreme forms of sedevacantism/ecclesiavacantism -- basically home aloners who believe we can't get into any "lifeboats" or consecrate bishops without papal authority -- the clock is ticking.
Matthew, God bless you and yours.
You describe an extreme form of sede vacante, home aloners; Some that reject the SSPX and CMRI bishops? These could be compared to an extreme form of novus ordo, modernists, who dismiss the SSPX and CMRI bishops.
If so, there might then be a middle ground, a lesser extreme form of sede vacante that recognize the SSPX and CMRI bishops. In the same manner (from my perspective), one might imagine a less extreme form of novus ordo with (pre-vatican2 rite) bishops, say for example the SSPX.
So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation. The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.
Some sedevacantists believe that an antipope can validly appoint bishops under supplied jurisdiction for good of the Chuch - that is an attempt to reconcile sedevacantism with the problem of Apostolic Succession.
-
So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation. The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.
That really is the only possible basis for claiming that the Catholic Church still exists. Of the five remaining bishops consecrated during the time of Pope Pius XII, none of them have asserted or claimed to be real (traditional) Catholic bishops. We really need to take a good honest hard look at the traditional bishops, such as we have them today. Who else (with any possibility whatsoever of real apostolic authority) will give us the Faith of all the great saints? That is the Faith I have come to the Church to receive and be nourished in and edified by, and to which I have a right as a baptized Catholic.
Perhaps people thought that things would turn around while some of these ancient old timers remain, but I have known for about 20 years that that will not happen.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
Yes, and so-called sedeprivationism says that Francis is NOT a true pope.
-
So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation. The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.
That really is the only possible basis for claiming that the Catholic Church still exists. Of the five remaining bishops consecrated during the time of Pope Pius XII, none of them have asserted or claimed to be real (traditional) Catholic bishops. We really need to take a good honest hard look at the traditional bishops, such as we have them today. Who else (with any possibility whatsoever of real apostolic authority) will give us the Faith of all the great saints? That is the Faith I have come to the Church to receive and be nourished in and edified by, and to which I have a right as a baptized Catholic.
Perhaps people thought that things would turn around while some of these ancient old timers remain, but I have known for about 20 years that that will not happen.
In much the same manner as the captain of a ship battens the hatches before a storm, the popes before Vatican2 were disciplined in their duty to protect the Faith. By examining the activities of the Church a mere hundred years prior to Vatican2, the methods and means of this modern revolution is revealed (I arranged a brief historical survey on the homepage of http://TraditionalCatholic.net with linked references therein).
I think anyone can recognize the greatness of these popes in their efforts to protect the Catholic Faith.
-
Some sedevacantists believe that an antipope can validly appoint bishops under supplied jurisdiction for good of the Chuch - that is an attempt to reconcile sedevacantism with the problem of Apostolic Succession.
It was an interesting thought, suggested by none less than John Lane, but it doesn't hold up under some extremely important considerations.
However, there have been, at times, antipopes who have made episcopal appointments which were allowed to stand and be accepted as having been lawfully appointed. Whenever this happened however, the antipope involved was nevertheless still a Catholic, someone who could be followed by Catholics without risk of their soul (in terms of his teachings and rulings and other official actions). In fact, very few of the 41 big historic antipopes have ever been heretical or even erroneous: Novatius is one (who went on to start the Novatians) and Vigilius is the other (who favored the erroneous "three chapters" and the three clerics who pushed them while Pope Silverius was still alive, but who turned against them when he became Pope), being the only two I know of.
But these were all antipopes who attempted a Papal reign while some other legitimate Pope also reigned. Paul VI and those coming after him have sometimes been called "antipopes," but their papal delusions are rejected not owing to the presence of a real Pope (unverifiable Siri hypothesis notwithstanding), but owing to their flagrantly heretical contradiction of the infallible teachings of the Church as confirmed by 260+ real Popes of the Church; they are in fact more properly referred to as heresiarchs.
A true Catholic, mistaken for a Pope by himself and by some part of the Church, would do his best to choose truly qualified Catholic men to be bishops, if anything competing with their papal claimant rivals for sheer orthodoxy in their choices and actions. A true Pope could therefore reasonably confirm and approve most or even all of the episcopal choices and appointments by such an antipope.
But a heresiarch appoints fellow heretics of like distorted mind and distorted theology, and as such none of his episcopal appointments should ever be permitted to be confirmed or approved. What sheer insanity it would be to assign to a heresiarch the authority to decide who is to be "approved" as a Catholic bishop and who is not! The John Lane suggestion, reasonable enough for most historical antipopes, can have no meaningful application to our present day situation wherein what we have is no mere antipope but heresiarch.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
Yes, and so-called sedeprivationism says that Francis is NOT a true pope.
Ignoramus. Can someone please ban you already?
Under sedeprivationism, Francis would not be formally the "true" pope but remains so materially. As I've pointed out to you on other threads, your mind cannot grasp even the basic concept of a distinction, and so you are completely disqualified from having any theological opinions. So, albeit laboring under a lack of formal authority, sedeprivationism allows the purely material aspects of the papacy to continue. Among those is the appointment of bishops. If those bishops in turn happen to have no other impediments to exercising their office, then they can formally assume episcopal authority. And this completely wipes away "ecclesiavacantism". Of course, radical dogmatic sedevacantists like yourself consider every one of these bishops to be ineligible due to heresy ... but that's utterly absurd.
You've been banned once before for your dogmatic sedevacantism but have the nerve to come back here under a new screen name.
-
Good thread.
the five remaining bishops consecrated during the time of Pope Pius XII
are all that remains of the Teaching Church, if we are truly in a 58 year sede vacante. You do not understand the inseparable link between the Apostolic succession and the Petrine succession, between the episcopacy and the Papacy. Pope St. Innocent I and Pope St. Leo the Great taught all episcopal authority emanates from Papal authority. Dom Gueranger explains this at length, and it was cited on the other thread. This is what Sacred Scripture and all of patristic Tradition understands by the Keys that Christ the Lord gave to St. Peter. Dom Adrien Grea says "Only the Pope appoints Bishops. This right belongs to him exclusively and necessarily, by the constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy." Only a Pope can appoint a Bishop to office, succession in episcopal sees cannot be continued apart from succession in the Papal see and no one can become a successor of the Apostles without the mediation of the Successor of Peter. The Roman Pontiffs have ever held and taught this doctrine, and no one was clearer and firmer on it than your alleged last Pope, His Holiness Pius XII teaching often and plainly that "ordinary jurisdiction flows to the bishops by divine right only through the Successor of Peter"
-
So here, in this example, CMRI and SSPX share a middle ground, a pre-vatican2 orientation. The bishops of these two orginizations clearly continue Latin Rite Catholic tradition, sede vacante or not.
That really is the only possible basis for claiming that the Catholic Church still exists. Of the five remaining bishops consecrated during the time of Pope Pius XII, none of them have asserted or claimed to be real (traditional) Catholic bishops. We really need to take a good honest hard look at the traditional bishops, such as we have them today. Who else (with any possibility whatsoever of real apostolic authority) will give us the Faith of all the great saints? That is the Faith I have come to the Church to receive and be nourished in and edified by, and to which I have a right as a baptized Catholic.
Perhaps people thought that things would turn around while some of these ancient old timers remain, but I have known for about 20 years that that will not happen.
In much the same manner as the captain of a ship battens the hatches before a storm, the popes before Vatican2 were disciplined in their duty to protect the Faith. By examining the activities of the Church a mere hundred years prior to Vatican2, the methods and means of this modern revolution is revealed (I arranged a brief historical survey on the homepage of http://TraditionalCatholic.net with linked references therein).
I think anyone can recognize the greatness of these popes in their efforts to protect the Catholic Faith.
Pius XII, knowing the Church was already filled with infiltrators clearly defined the form and matter of priestly ordination in 1947 knowing full well they wanted to invalidate the Sacraments and hoping to stem the tide. They figured a 21 year wait would be long enough.
-
Some sedevacantists believe that an antipope can validly appoint bishops under supplied jurisdiction for good of the Chuch - that is an attempt to reconcile sedevacantism with the problem of Apostolic Succession.
It was an interesting thought, suggested by none less than John Lane, but it doesn't hold up under some extremely important considerations.
However, there have been, at times, antipopes who have made episcopal appointments which were allowed to stand and be accepted as having been lawfully appointed. Whenever this happened however, the antipope involved was nevertheless still a Catholic, someone who could be followed by Catholics without risk of their soul (in terms of his teachings and rulings and other official actions). In fact, very few of the 41 big historic antipopes have ever been heretical or even erroneous: Novatius is one (who went on to start the Novatians) and Vigilius is the other (who favored the erroneous "three chapters" and the three clerics who pushed them while Pope Silverius was still alive, but who turned against them when he became Pope), being the only two I know of.
But these were all antipopes who attempted a Papal reign while some other legitimate Pope also reigned. Paul VI and those coming after him have sometimes been called "antipopes," but their papal delusions are rejected not owing to the presence of a real Pope (unverifiable Siri hypothesis notwithstanding), but owing to their flagrantly heretical contradiction of the infallible teachings of the Church as confirmed by 260+ real Popes of the Church; they are in fact more properly referred to as heresiarchs.
A true Catholic, mistaken for a Pope by himself and by some part of the Church, would do his best to choose truly qualified Catholic men to be bishops, if anything competing with their papal claimant rivals for sheer orthodoxy in their choices and actions. A true Pope could therefore reasonably confirm and approve most or even all of the episcopal choices and appointments by such an antipope.
But a heresiarch appoints fellow heretics of like distorted mind and distorted theology, and as such none of his episcopal appointments should ever be permitted to be confirmed or approved. What sheer insanity it would be to assign to a heresiarch the authority to decide who is to be "approved" as a Catholic bishop and who is not! The John Lane suggestion, reasonable enough for most historical antipopes, can have no meaningful application to our present day situation wherein what we have is no mere antipope but heresiarch.
I wish I could "like" your posts "Where is Peter".
I'll "like" it this way. :applause:
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
No offense however, and I admit I can not get my head around the definition of Sedeprivationism, it sounds like what you are saying is we have a pretend pope. Which is the same thing a sedevacantist says.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
No offense however, and I admit I can not get my head around the definition of Sedeprivationism, it sounds like what you are saying is we have a pretend pope. Which is the same thing a sedevacantist says.
Both teach he is not a valid Pope. One thinks it solves the visibility problem when the Church is visible, IMO, through the Catholic Bishops and their successors who continued the Catholic Church through V2 to now.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
No offense however, and I admit I can not get my head around the definition of Sedeprivationism, it sounds like what you are saying is we have a pretend pope. Which is the same thing a sedevacantist says.
Not exactly. Ladislaus can explain.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
No offense however, and I admit I can not get my head around the definition of Sedeprivationism, it sounds like what you are saying is we have a pretend pope. Which is the same thing a sedevacantist says.
Both teach he is not a valid Pope. One thinks it solves the visibility problem when the Church is visible, IMO, through the Catholic Bishops and their successors who continued the Catholic Church through V2 to now.
Pure sedevacantism holds that they're no popes at all, in any way ... which leads to the ecclesiavacantist problem. Sedeprivationism states that they are materially legitimate and that things like succession can happen materially. Similarly, if such a one were to appoint a bishop to a See and the bishop has no impediment to exercising the office, that bishop could formally exercise the office. So Apostolic Succession continues even formally. Sedevacantism holds that such popes cannot even ensure material succession, much less formal.
-
Sedeprivationism completely solves the ecclesiavacantist problem.
No offense however, and I admit I can not get my head around the definition of Sedeprivationism, it sounds like what you are saying is we have a pretend pope. Which is the same thing a sedevacantist says.
Both teach he is not a valid Pope. One thinks it solves the visibility problem when the Church is visible, IMO, through the Catholic Bishops and their successors who continued the Catholic Church through V2 to now.
Pure sedevacantism holds that they're no popes at all, in any way ... which leads to the ecclesiavacantist problem. Sedeprivationism states that they are materially legitimate and that things like succession can happen materially. Similarly, if such a one were to appoint a bishop to a See and the bishop has no impediment to exercising the office, that bishop could formally exercise the office. So Apostolic Succession continues even formally. Sedevacantism holds that such popes cannot even ensure material succession, much less formal.
Correct.
But I believe Apostolic Succession has continued as it has in past interregnum's and when the approval of existing pope's was tacit only. Despite the fact, IMO, that there has not been a formal or material Pope since at least 1964.
-
But I believe Apostolic Succession has continued as it has in past interregnum's and when the approval of existing pope's was tacit only. Despite the fact, IMO, that there has not been a formal or material Pope since at least 1964.
And I disagree. I believe that there have been material popes the entire time. Except of course I consider the Siri Thesis to be extremely likely ... which would completely change the entire equation. Absent sedeprivationism, however, I do not believe that some kind of "tacit approval" would suffice to continue the Apostolic Succession.
-
But I believe Apostolic Succession has continued as it has in past interregnum's and when the approval of existing pope's was tacit only. Despite the fact, IMO, that there has not been a formal or material Pope since at least 1964.
And I disagree. I believe that there have been material popes the entire time. Except of course I consider the Siri Thesis to be extremely likely ... which would completely change the entire equation. Absent sedeprivationism, however, I do not believe that some kind of "tacit approval" would suffice to continue the Apostolic Succession.
I believe we both understand each other correctly and disagree with each other as is our right. I do not think either of our positions can be declared "unCatholic". I once considered the Siri thesis likely and now I do not. But all this is opinion.
-
I think we could have had material popes from 1958 - 1964 as hard and as disgusting it is for me to suggest Paul 6 might have been a material pope for a time. But this would mean that in the objective realm neither Roncalli or Montini were public heretics before their elections.
-
Disclaimer and I hesitate to post it but here goes ... I have absolutely no opinion of this, however I am curious and would like to mention it. If anyone here has an opinion. I wonder because it seems everyone is always trying to figure out how God is going to work all this out. Why not add this to the mix.
For a short time I posted over at Suscipe Domine and there was a poster who used the name of Jean-Baptiste who was certain that Paul VI was held captive and still is after all these years by the Anti-Christ as in a valid pope in exile. Of course if this were true he would be well over 100 years old not at all impossible for God allow if there was a purpose.
Also what of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAxsFs9tjd4
-
Disclaimer and I hesitate to post it but here goes ... I have absolutely no opinion of this, however I am curious and would like to mention it. If anyone here has an opinion. I wonder because it seems everyone is always trying to figure out how God is going to work all this out. Why not add this to the mix.
For a short time I posted over at Suscipe Domine and there was a poster who used the name of Jean-Baptiste who was certain that Paul VI was held captive and still is after all these years by the Anti-Christ as in a valid pope in exile. Of course if this were true he would be well over 100 years old not at all impossible for God allow if there was a purpose.
Also what of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAxsFs9tjd4
I dismiss it. But there is so much we do not know and won't know until after we die. Basically as bad as you can imagine happened the reality is probably worse.
The bottom line is that we do not have a Pope and have not had one since at least 1964 and how that will be rectified and what can we (clergy and lay people) do to help.
Theories while interesting and perhaps true, do not change the circuŠ¼stance.
Obviously that does not mean that you have not raised an important point. We know those who claim to be Pope since then have not been Popes and that is what must be addressed IMO.
-
Thanks Lover of Truth, I wish however who it was who gave you the thumb down would explain why they felt so strong against your reply to me.
I agree there are so many theories out there it is nice to see a thread where everyone is charitable to each other, only God knows how, and when things will get normal.
-
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn:
Me too! I like the caramel dipped!
-
Thanks Lover of Truth, I wish however who it was who gave you the thumb down would explain why they felt so strong against your reply to me.
I agree there are so many theories out there it is nice to see a thread where everyone is charitable to each other, only God knows how, and when things will get normal.
People are simply petty. That is the reason for the thumbs down.
I would give you a thumbs up if I could, but I can't so I will do this:
:applause: