Author Topic: FOR AMBROSE  (Read 5158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8480
  • Reputation: +1093/-825
  • Gender: Male
FOR AMBROSE
« on: August 17, 2013, 04:45:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ambrose,

    Please point out the errors in the below article.  The best way for you to straiten me out is to refute Griff's articles for me.

    I am open.  I have nothing invested in one opinion or the other.  I just want the truth and I know this is a topic that I am woefully unqualified to speak.  Please help me here.  If anyone can and will do it it is you.  If you prefer to PM that will be fine as well.  Whatever works best for you.  

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12May/may14str.htm

    A traditionalist colleague of mine has described the Church today as being like a rubber room. Now, mind you, this is not someone who would think of the Novus Ordo Vatican apparatus as being in any way the Church (that place really is quite the rubber room), but someone who knows that we traditional Catholics, the faithful remnant, are the Church. It is therefore we who have been so uncharitably described, and by one who walks among us as one of us.

        Given the admittedly huge scale of the crisis that faces us, the smallness of our numbers, the fact that so many of us are still having to learn such basics as what is and is not the True Mass, the importance of the other True Sacraments, and even the Church's popeless condition, there is much to be found in diversity of opinion about our present situation. Such diversity can never be a good thing, especially when it is we who must act together in concert, in obedience to God, to do our part, each and every one of us, and regardless of whether that part be large or small, to restore the Church. The feeling one might sometimes have of being in a rubber room is, at least, somewhat understandable, though really here inside the Church is the one place that isn't a rubber room.

        It is one thing to express such feelings when exasperated by our fellow Catholics who somehow fail to "get it" or even worse, behave reprehensibly, and with seemingly little sense of accountability. On the other hand, it is a very serious matter to describe the Church as being a "rubber room" in such a manner as to imply that such a statement could ever go beyond the subjective feelings of individuals who have problems getting along with other individuals or coping with what seems to many at this point to be an incalculably incomprehensible circumstance.

        All of us commonly and widely note the arguments, the disputes, the acrimonies, and the genuinely asinine manner in which so many utterly sound clerics (in all other respects) can disrespect each other as if they were nothing. Some, focusing on the various disputes and times and places in which things seem to have gone wrong, have even fallen into a slight despair over the condition of the Church. So much nastiness (overall, Church-wide, not at all very much or often, but locally at times painfully acute) takes place, and nothing seems to get done. People just seem to part ways and the Church seems to continue to atomize into smaller and smaller (but more and more) groups. As Catholics we all must know this is not how things are meant to be, as our Faith alone can (and does) provide the only truly unifying factor that exists in this world.

        We traditional Catholics ARE the Church; the Holy Ghost is with us, and only us, in that special manner promised to the Saints upon the ascension of our Lord: I will be with you always! Our prayers, and no one else's, have the power and authority to bring about wondrous Apostolic miracles, to drive out the demons, to break the satanic strongholds, to deliver whole nations from bondage to sin. So what goes wrong? What is our failure, or our sin, that God should punish those of us who alone comprise His Own true Church with such distressing troubles as ought to not ever take place among what saints we are?

        Some have even been scandalized, as a result of which they refuse to enter through that narrow gate the Bible speaks of and that we traditional Catholics alone represent. Souls are pouring into Hell by the millions because of our antics. By refusing to become traditional Catholics they, in that, refuse to enter the one and only Church that God established by which souls can be saved. And it is WE that have scandalized them! Just because God can be merciful towards those who in good faith find His Own Church too repellant to join does not give any of us the excuse to presume upon that mercy. Others, even those who have walked with us and among us for quite some time, have even been noted to have departed from we who are the Church in disgust and anger and despair. Can we not see what a hideous crime before God our petty infighting and internecine struggles constitute? It is a crime that calls for vengeance from Heaven, and could easily merit and obtain it sometime soon.

        One important thing to bear in mind however is that we all know that if only there were an actual and true living Pope, we all know what he would do, and what we would do in response. We know that he would direct all faithful bishops to recognize each other and he would compel them to work together as the one apostolic body they comprise. He would judge any and all erring bishops, not merely to condemn but with an eye towards rehabilitating them into their legitimate role in the Kingdom of God, putting out only those who have proven themselves pertinacious in error or in odious conduct. He would admonish all priests to be subject to their bishops, and religious and laity to their priests. He would declare against the heresies and errors of the Novus Ordo religion, and perhaps other contemporary errors as well, condemning them with the fullest weight of his authority.

        He would call together the greatest Catholic minds to sort out and discuss all the questions that have perplexed us during this crisis, and after great and careful prayer, research, and meditation, give definitive rulings to settle each question with that final and irrevocable infallible authority that he alone can truly muster. And we, for our parts, would one and all gladly submit to his authority and rejoice to hear the Voice of Peter among us again. We would set aside with humble submission whatever positions and personal opinions we had which turn out to be judged erroneous by the Pope. Who of us would dare to claim the title of Catholic if this were not so? Who from among us could be so blatantly stupid as to deny the authority of whatever true pope should ever come along, or seek to delay that coming and prolong our present agony as long as God can permit? God has not willed our weakness or smallness or lack of unity; we did that to ourselves in knowing and deliberate defiance and malice against the most evident and loving will of God. Who of us would want to be found working against the evident will of God on Judgment day?

        Of course, we know that the coming of a true Pope is nowhere near, at this time. While it is guaranteed (in the will of God) that steps will one day have to be taken towards a papal conclave, obviously the Church today is not in the least position to begin that essential process. Not for any lack of the necessary ability or authority, but for the lack of any serious will on our parts to accomplish it. God wills it; too many of us rebel, pure and simple. All of us will have some role, however small in most cases, towards this end. But now as I write these words, this can only be a dream, though sharing this dream is obviously a morally obligatory requirement of anyone and everyone with any of the least right to be called a Catholic.

        Taking for granted a lengthy time before the Church can expect to have a pope again, I perceive a relationship between some of the causes of that delay and our present ills, most especially all the infighting and problems we have among ourselves. While we know the absence of a pope is certainly part of our problem, there is also another part of the problem which is related and the real problem that lies at the heart of our present inability to organize as we all know we truly must and ought.

        The whole problem boils down to one of authority. What was it that kept the Church one single monolithic whole while the various rivals (schismatic eastern, protestants, and others) split and fragmented, and can never be reconciled, despite centuries or even millennia of existence? Oftentimes we say it is the Pope. However, this ability to avoid fragmentation also applies to those times that the Church went without a pope, even for periods of time into the multiple years. The Church can survive for quite some period without a pope, as every time of Sede Vacante (including the current one, lengthy and disastrous as it has been) has amply demonstrated. But the Church cannot survive for even one second without authority.

        It is most clearly established that authority always exists in the Church, regardless of whether there is a pope at a given moment or not. The Pope, after all, is not the sole repository of authority in the Church, but rather only the supreme repository. When the Church is without a pope, the bishops still possess authority, and do their part to continue the unity of the Church while waiting for the arrival of another pope.

        But many, or even most, of today's bishops seem to imagine that they have no authority. There is no known valid theological reason for any of our traditionalist bishops to have even the slightest doubt as to their formal and public canonical duty and authority and habitual jurisdiction. One must therefore look elsewhere for the cause of this, namely to cognitive and psychological failures of many who have merely drifted along in an unexamined life. Only then can one discover anything of the source and history and background for what is, both on the face of it, as well as only all the more evident upon the closest and most thorough examination, a most wildly absurd behavior pattern. And only in facing those sources and history can those who formerly, and in all mistaken sincerity, fallen into such error finally come to see what mistake was made and how to overcome it. I find three such reasons.

     THE BURNING HOUSE AND THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK

        Let me start with a couple interspersed illustrations. In the middle of the night, a man's house caught fire. By the time he awoke to the disaster, it was too late to do anything but get himself out of the house to save his own life, and hope that everyone else in the household also managed to do the same. Standing outside the burning house and watching it burn down, he gazes in shock, unable to think practical thoughts, mourning his memories, wondering how much coverage his insurance provides, wondering if everyone else made it out alive, and conscious of the fact, from the lack of very many others standing around it like he, that many in the household did not make it out alive. The whole thing went up in smoke and no one still inside can be alive (and as it turns out, no one trapped inside was alive).

        But then, with a whole body spasm, his blood turns to liquid ice and all flows down into his feet, as it hits him. All of his crucial papers, all the contracts, the deeds, the titles, the documented debts, his identification papers, and all of which that he had were the sole copies of, were in that house. He is now standing there with only his pajamas on his back, realizing that he has no way of proving to anyone who he is, what he owned, what others owed him, and so much more. He cannot help but feel utterly stripped of everything important to him other than his bare life. The house had been insured, so certainly the funds to rebuild it must exist, and new clothes and furniture can be bought, however even the insurance papers were in that house. Though he still lives, truly all is lost; he is ruined. In his despondency he vacillates between gibbering sobs of despair and making vain and angry declarations rebuilding it all from scratch or of finding out who caused it and getting revenge or what not.

        When what very few bishops as there were willing to take the necessary action to flee the burning house of the Novus Ordo left it, it was all they could do to think of bare survival for themselves and their ability to make priests. But as they fled for their spiritual lives, it doesn't seem that they ever thought specifically to pack their authority. Surely it must have all gotten lost, left behind and now burned to useless bits in the fire. What can they do now?

        However, at this dark and miserable spot, the scene temporarily shifts. The next scene is in Admiral Kirk's apartment, and the Admiral is conferring with Ambassador Sarek of Vulcan, the father of Mr. Spock who had just given his life to save the Enterprise and all aboard. The following dialog transpires:
    Sarek: Spock trusted you, and you denied him his future.
    Kirk: I saw no future.

    Sarek: Only his body was in death, Kirk, and you were the last one to be with him.

    Kirk: Yes I was.

    Sarek: Then you must know that you should have come with him to Vulcan.

    Kirk: But why?

    Sarek: Because he asked you to; he entrusted you, with his very essence, with everything that is not of the body. He asked you to bring him to us and to bring that which he gave you - his Katra - his living spirit.

    Kirk: Sir, your son meant more to me that you can know. I'd have given my life if it would have saved his. Believe me when I tell you he made no request of me.

    Sarek: He would not have spoken of it openly.

    Kirk: Then how...

    Sarek: Kirk, I must have your thoughts. May I join your mind?

    Kirk: Certainly.
     A brief Vulcan mind-meld follows. Sarek and Kirk relive together Kirk's last moments with Spock. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I always have been, and always shall be, your friend." Kirk's grief is refreshed, "Spock!" Sarek withdraws; the mind-meld is over. The dialog then continues: Sarek: Forgive me. It is not here. I had assumed he mind-melded with you. It is the Vulcan way when the body's end is near.
    Kirk: We were separate. He couldn't touch me.

    Sarek: I see. Then everything that he was, everything he knew, is lost.

    Sarek starts to leave, but Kirk interrupts his departure:

    Kirk: Please wait. He would have found a way. If there was that much at stake, Spock would have found a way.

    Sarek: Yes, but how?

        It turns out that Spock did find a way, and his Katra was not lost. Now shifting back to our previous illustration, in the earliest days of our having to flee that burning house of the Novus Ordo, we Catholics (in the person of our living bishops' Episcopal predecessors) might not have thought about rescuing the Church's authority. But can any of us really claim that our departure was not clearly intended and foreseen in the Providence of God? Were all of us, and especially the clerics, who fled the Novus Ordo merely fleeing to preserve our own selfish individual lives? We know there was more to it all than that. God was in that flight, even and exactly as God was in the flight to Egypt taken by the Holy Family when Herod sought the life of the Christ child. And who would dare to assert that the Holy Child lost His status as the Christ merely by leaving His holy house in Bethlehem, and even leaving Judea, the Promised Land of His people?

        Back at the fire, another escaped member of the household was busy tapping at the man's shoulder. He kept saying "excuse me," but the man shrugged him off. He didn't want to talk to anyone, and he certainly wasn't ready for any more bad news, whatever that could be, or even for any good news in view of how comically insignificant it would have to be, comparatively, in the face of that most complete and utter tragic loss. Having shrugged the other man off, he continued to weep and wallow in his despondency.

        But the other man wasn't quite ready to give up just yet. His message was very urgent and he was not willing let it not be conveyed. Having spent a few moments steeling himself for what he had to do next he grabbed the man firmly and roughly by the shoulders and began shaking him back and forth with jaw-clattering force until for a brief moment he captures the wearied gaze of the man. "I am trying to tell you something VERY important here, and you have GOT to listen!"

        With the greatest of weariness and impatience and annoyance, the man finally asked the other man to have his say. "All right, I will listen." Just so I can get you out of my face. "What is it? What do you want?"

        "Remember how you had all of those important documents in your briefcase, on top of the dresser by the window upstairs? Well, the fire was caused by an explosion in that room which blasted the briefcase, hey," he shook him again, "pay attention! ...which blasted the briefcase right through the window and it landed on the ground just outside, fully intact. While I was running out of the house, I happened to see it and I grabbed it, and here it is. Everything is inside it."

        "What?" Slowly, but then with very gradually dawning excitement and hyperventilation, the man began to wonder if it really was here, that all he had worried about and despaired of had in fact survived, and was now here before him. "This is no time to be putting me on!" but it is not a put on. This is for real, and here is the briefcase, obviously intact. "Everything is inside it." Could it be?

        Frantically, he tore it from the other man's hands and opened it and began checking for each individual item he had thought lost. "This? Is this here? Yes! And that? Yes! And what about, uh oh! Where's the, oh, oh wait, wait, here it is! Yes!" Everything he needed really is there. Even though he himself forgot to try to rescue this briefcase full of such vital papers, Providence remembered what he, in his moment of dire emergency and confusion, had forgotten.

        God is not a mere man, so as to be so foolish and silly and fallible as to forget to pack something so very important and vital to the very continuance of His Church as its authority. Men might forget, even the very men whose heroism will one day prove to have been the very basis for any real future for the Church as a legal, visible, identifiable, canonical, and ontologically identical organized body, in fact exactly still the Mystical Body of Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. "If there was that much at stake," God would have found a way. Even if we weren't aware of it at first, God was.

        Does anyone really think that God was surprised by Vatican II? He Who knows the beginning to the end knows and always knew that this disaster was coming. And He knew that whatever small remnant of believers as would soon have to comprise His Church would have to come out and reorganize separate from that fallen and ex-ecclesial organization. We all know He saw to it that we would have valid Holy Orders among us, valid and in depth theological teaching, a heroic Faith fit to stand up against a whole world gone mad and every other credible reason possible to lose one's faith. Can anyone seriously maintain that God would forget also to pack a certain little thing known as His Church's authority as well?

        Perhaps when the initial traditional bishops first departed, whether from being themselves unable to abide the filthiness that had come to surround them, or from being actually expulsed from the Novus Ordo organization on account of their refusal to compromise with error, did they really think they left their rightful office in the Church behind? Could any of them really believe that the Novus Ordo heretics could authoritatively retain control of any Catholic office? Back in England, if a priest were to be put out for refusing to sign the declaration of royal supremacy, lose access to his church and rectory due to having the locks changed and another more willing priest "installed" in his place, would he really be expected to believe that the schismatic Anglican clergy would have the authority to deprive him of the faculties which the Catholic Church gave him?

        Maybe at the time, uncertain of what the problem is at its root, and uncertain of whether there might have been some "better" way for him to have handled it, he may not comprehend his bishop's loss of authority, such that he might even imagine at the time that he really was stepping out of his office and resigning by allowing the schismatic bishop to expulse him. But once he did work all that out, what else can he conclude but that the only office "resigned" from was a fake new office in the fake new schismatic "church." Allow some mere schismatic outsider to take away his Catholic faculties as a priest? Of course that would be completely nuts. It is the Catholic Church that gave him his faculties, and it is only they who could ever validly and lawfully take them away from him. And obviously there was absolutely no occasion here for the Church to have done that. (Granted he also had the benefit of a pope in Rome to affirm the above, in case he still felt uncertain about it.)

        See, he in his own mind subjectively might be excused for feeling uncertain of whether his (now Anglican) bishop has lost the Catholic authority to make that kind of decision. After all, the same bishop, when he was still with the Pope and no schism as yet had been created, had appointed him to this parish, and now is the one personally suspending him, declaring his faculties revoked, and forbidding him any ministry in his parish. But in the cold light of reason (to say nothing of the warm reassurances of Faith), such feelings are plainly and indisputably utterly without merit. His departure has no moral force of Law behind it. A schismatic bishop can only deprive a priest of a schismatic office, not a Catholic office.

        But, feeling uncertain of what relation he has to his former office and faculties as a priest, and until those feelings can be put to rest through a sound application of Faith and reason, it is only in this context he looks to what resources he must still possess, even were his office truly lost. Certainly, he would have to know that at the very least he would have to as yet retain the right to function "upon request," very much along the lines of a mere "sacrament machine." But as the situation becomes clearer over time, does it not behoove him to realize that his (now former) bishop was no longer authorized to so deprive him of any authority in his parish as its priest? And if this applies to the individual clerics themselves (not only individual priests, but bishops as well), is it not obvious that it must also (theologically speaking) apply to their succession as well? Were Bishop Saint John Fisher able to have consecrated some successor bishops for England before being confined in the tower, and even if no communication with Rome were possible with which to coordinate his selections, certainly the British King and his Anglican church would have been quite incapable of depriving those successor bishops of whatever offices he consecrated them for.

        Our clerics were all so careful to preserve licitly valid Holy Orders. But why bother when valid Holy Orders can be obtained from any valid schismatic? Can anyone seriously believe that our bright and idealistic young men who approach our traditional seminaries to become priests, and who go through years and years of training and formation before they can be finally ordained, do all this merely for the purpose of becoming canonically nothing better than what you get if some ignorant country bumpkin pays an Old Catholic bishop $25.00 to make a priest out of him one afternoon? Obviously, there is much more value to being a traditional priest from any of our seminaries, and that goes well beyond mere obvious value of their careful and fully orthodox training and formation. They have priestly authority and regular faculties.

        To bring in yet another illustration, picture some police, exiled from the police station by the gangsters and mobsters that have taken it over, but they are no less true cops for all that. They wear the uniform. They carry the badge. They use the gun. They have the beat. And they are the only ones out there heroically fighting the bad guys, the gangsters, and mobsters, and all other criminal elements. But then, in and amongst all of this heroic activity, one or another of them suddenly declares out of the blue for no apparent reason, "I have no authority to enforce the law." Now, what's up with that? Of course they do. There is no valid reason for that even to have been a question.

        And yet another illustration, the bank explodes, and a person with their account at that bank feels doubts about whether any record of his substantial bank balance remains. So for fear of writing bad checks, he proceeds as if he now had only the change in his pocket. But even human-run banks are usually smarter than that, and certainly all the more so is God. Whenever our clerics have brought up such topics as ecclesia supplet and epikeia and Canon 209, those things can most properly be regarded as them stating that at least they can be certain of the change in their pocket, whatever doubts they may feel regarding their bank's account balance and information. But that fallback mentality has become misdirection for anyone who has ever supposed from such remarks that the change in their pockets was really all that they had left.

        Back again to the man with the burning house, like the other man shaking that man's shoulders and showing him that his documents were all preserved and safe, I beg, plead, and implore our bishops to reexamine the regular and habitual authority they indeed must possess, one and all of those who uphold the whole and entire teaching of the Church. They simply MUST have it, for if they do not, then authority itself can no longer ever exist on this earth. No one else has it. And one more thing: This is a hill I am prepared to die on, if needs be.

     SOME UNFORTUNATE EXCESSES

        On the other hand, there were, fairly early on, some who realized that they as the few remaining Catholic bishops did indeed possess such authority, but in this valid and important realization, failed to handle that authority responsibly. Looking back on it now, it is clear that certain ones (I won't name them, one of whom is still alive, but those concerned know of whom I speak) felt that they could just "stake a claim" over some territory as if they were some sort of frontiersmen attempting to homestead somewhere out in the untamed wilderness.

        Having done this, without any coordination with any other faithful Catholic bishops (of which there were several known and operative even as they attempted to "stake" such claims), they dared to presume to have the unique and exclusive authority over the vast territory they staked a claim over, and all that without anywhere near the vast staffing (at least dozens of assistant bishops and hundreds of priests) it would have taken to cover their claimed territory to even a bare token minimum. From this absurd and selfish claim, they arrogated to themselves the right to exclude all episcopal peers and their attached priests and faithful from their vast new "dioceses."

        There are other things they did which were also quite odious, for example preventing Bishop Thục from consecrating any more bishops by confining him to their compound and preventing any further prospective clerics from having any access to him. Thục could have done so much more good for the Church, if only small-minded men hadn't prevented him. They were afraid he would (and he would have, if only given the chance) ordain and consecrate far worthier men than themselves.

        In reaction, in fact overreaction, to these odious actions of a very few vicious bishops, there seems to have formed some sort of "gentleman's agreement" among the remainder of all Catholic bishops not to claim jurisdiction or authority, no matter what they might inwardly know they do and must have. But what good does it do to avoid falling off one side of the horse if one instead merely falls off the other side? Some sort of balance is needed, some means to resolve the questions of how jurisdiction exists among them today. And this leads us to the third point.

     AN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT A SPECIFIC MATTER

        In today's prolonged popeless condition, there is not so much as a single bishop living who functions at all as a truly Catholic bishop and who was chosen by name by a pope. As I can easily go on to show (based on standard handbooks of Theology), this in no way deprives any of them of the lawful and jurisdiction-holding office of Bishop in the Church. But two additional complications do exist.

        For one, the bishops are now so pitifully few that it is meaningless to attempt to assign our few existing bishops to any of our former diocesan Sees, of which there are literally thousands all around the world, way too many for our dozen or two or so bishops to fill. Someday in the future, once there should come to be anywhere near so many bishops again, it will behoove our bishops at that time to begin occupying former diocesan Sees, provided that all is done in decency and good order and concurrence among them all, ideally in submission to a pope, as to who gets which diocesan See. But at this time, such an attempt would be meaningless and even counterproductive, even were there a pope to so assign them.

        The other stems directly from the absence of a pope. Ideally, a pope should be the one to arbitrate among the bishops, to demark (by whatever method he chooses) exactly where one bishop's authority leaves off and the next bishop's authority takes up. This would be all part and parcel of requiring and ordering the bishops to cooperate with each other and to recognize each other. And certainly, once there is a pope again, this would most certainly be among his very first jobs to do as pope. Let us hope and pray that the next true pope does not shake things up too much in his way of handling this, but does his best to try to "grandfather in" whatever he can, but all in the context of such direction the Church should nevertheless take in the years during and after his pontificate.

        But it is a true pope's decision, and once made, whether wise or foolish, we must submit (pray that it will be wise). Whatever advice and recommendations we can give to help him in making a good and wise choice remains nevertheless exactly that, namely advice, and he retains the right to disregard it all entirely should he so choose. In fact the only thing he wouldn't have a right to do would be to annihilate the whole Church by ruling out all of them (which would also rule out the episcopal lines of his own consecrators). Such a thing would be almost on the level of contradicting the Deposit of Faith, or changing or innovating upon what has been handed to him by Sacred Tradition and his predecessors (making him heretical), and fully on the level of excommunicating the entire Church or overturning all the sacred rites of the Church which, as Francisco Suarez writes, would truly be a schismatic action (and as such to be disregarded as anything more than the man's own resignation from the papacy).

        But without a pope, how is any such demarcation to be made? As it stands now, all bishops are canonical equals. As such, none can judge another, and none can command another. So what is to be done when one's jurisdiction overlaps with another's, such that they become rivals? This has been one real source of much of the friction thus far. No matter how much they pretend to having no authority, they do have it, and when one's authority interferes with another's authority, there is often a clash. Denial of that authority is nothing but a psychological self-subterfuge. It is like getting back at someone who stepped on your foot, all the while denying you ever had any feet.

        This requires their mutual cooperation for the good of the Church, of the Faithful, and of the Cause of Christ. By mutual consent and by the "good fences that make for good neighbors" there most certainly does need to be such clear demarcations between their areas of authority, and each permitted proper ruling authority within their "area," whether that be a geographical region or in a more metaphorical sense, for example, in an "area of expertise." The manuals expressly state that "with the exception of the Roman Pontiff, no bishop possesses authority over other bishops by Divine right." (Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology: Christ's Church, page 322). Ergo, until such time as a pope comes along and chooses to award some supra-episcopal authority (e.g. that possessed by Patriarchs, Archbishops, etc.), our traditional bishops are necessarily all canonical equals, and as such none of them can judge another. Until such time as a pope comes along to rule, it is required of our bishops to come to some mutually agreed-upon demarcation between their respective spheres of authority, and to respect such boundaries, provisional as they admittedly are.

        But taken together collectively, when acting together in unison as a body, and indeed as a college, I do believe that present popeless circumstances would warrant the ability and right for such a quorum to form the necessary tribunal, and, after due process where necessary, pass judgment on a single erring bishop. Indeed, there are any number of principles which clearly define the duties of each bishop with respect to their flocks, the flocks of others, and each other, which I will get to in a later part.

     CATHOLIC DOGMA SETTLES THE ISSUE DEFINITIVELY

        One thing I have found running thick throughout the whole warp and woof of the theological handbooks, especially on the topic of ecclesiology, is that the bishops of Christ's Church most certainly do always and everywhere possess the authority to teach, sanctify, and rule their respective flocks, and this authority is given to them by God, and not by the consent of the "governed" nor at their will or discretion which is in fact roundly and rightly condemned as heresy.

        Are we traditional Catholics Christ's Church? If not, then what is? And in such a case, then what are you doing here with us? But if so (and it IS so), then as Catholic teaching itself holds, "Christ Himself established a sacred authority in His Church, and that this authority, invested first in the apostolic college, was uninterruptedly perpetuated, and in fact perdures today in the college of bishops" (Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology: Christ's Church, page 32). This is meant to go clear until the actual return of Christ. No matter how close His return may be, this authority necessarily must and does perdure to this day in the college of bishops.

        All of this is doctrinally established. To quote Msgr. G. Van Noort, "The Church ...may be defined as follows: The society of men who, by their profession of the same faith and by their partaking of the same sacraments, make up, under the rule of apostolic pastors and their head, the kingdom of Christ on earth." Can that be anybody but us traditional Catholics? Who else has the same faith as we, except for all Catholics of recorded history? Who else has the same sacraments as we, except for all Catholics of recorded history? Who else lives under the rule of apostolic pastors and their head [Christ always, and His Vicars on earth at all times that His Church has an earthly Vicar of Christ], as the kingdom of Christ on the earth that we do, except for all Catholics of recorded history?

        The theological evidences for authority are so profound and stunning and thorough that one has to wonder how it is they have not received any attention. Obviously of course, when one does not look one does not find. And one might not bother to look if one does not expect standard ecclesiology to have anything useful to say about the Church's conspicuously nonstandard circumstance. But other forces have also been at work. There is an enemy in the camp, one that has been allowed to run untrammeled for way too long.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #1 on: August 20, 2013, 02:29:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is good to know that there is no definitive error in the above document.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2424/-11
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #2 on: August 20, 2013, 05:09:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    It is good to know that there is no definitive error in the above document.


    Why did you write this, I have not read it yet?  You asked me to read it and look for any errors and I will.  I just have not had the time to devote to this at present, but you have my word that I will read it and give you an answer.


    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #3 on: August 21, 2013, 06:07:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    It is good to know that there is no definitive error in the above document.


    Why did you write this, I have not read it yet?  You asked me to read it and look for any errors and I will.  I just have not had the time to devote to this at present, but you have my word that I will read it and give you an answer.




    Thank you very much.  I would like to see it clarified for us all if people like us with a limited amount of training can do so.

    I'm not sure why I constantly get a down thumb for taking the minority view.  I could see if I was denying the need for the apostolic mandate but I'm not.  

    I believe the Apostolic line was continued with our validly consecrated bishops because they kept the faith and ministered the valid sacraments to the faithful while the NO lost the faith and minister false and doubtful sacraments to the would be faithful.  

    The valid Apostolic Thuc and Lefebvre lines did not leave the Church.  The Church left us.  

    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #4 on: August 21, 2013, 07:57:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear LOT, claiming Archbishop Lefebvre's name for this idea is absolutely impossible. He was always very clear and told the Bishops he consecrated, as an emergency situation under epikeia, that he was not bestowing any power of jurisdiction upon them. The Archbishop understood very clearly what is involved here as do all four bishops consecrated by him upto the present day.

    I do not know much about Archbishop Thuc, that is between you and Ambrose, although I'm fairly sure he did not either claim to give this power to any of the sedevacantist bishops consecrated by him.

    It would be wrong for any bishop, to think he can give bestow jurisdiction on another, since by it he usurps a power proper only to the Supreme Pontiff, who alone can judge and choose which candidates are fit for the episcopacy over a particular flock, who alone can give them the power to govern that flock, that power flows to them only through him, as canon law, the Church's Magisterium, her theologians, and Sacred Scripture teach. Tradition and the Popes understands these words of Christ  ""He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" of those who try to become bishops over a flock in some other way.

    I really don't mean to be harsh, but what you're saying is a very serious and grievous error, at best. You should correct your friend Mr. Griff Ruby.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #5 on: August 21, 2013, 08:12:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

    Quote
    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.

    http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... ations.htm
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #6 on: August 21, 2013, 08:17:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From Fideliter:

    Quote
    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 circumstances 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.



    Bishop Daniel Dolan stated in an interview:

    Quote
    “We don’t claim to possess any ordination jurisdiction or the power of excommunication. We have moral authority, but we don’t boss people around. We’re sacramental bishops, and traditionalist communities simply can’t survive for very long without sacramental bishops.”


    Bishop Sanborn, Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, June 7, 2002

    Quote
    As I mentioned to you in my previous letter, on June 19th I am to be consecrated a bishop. I look forward to this with a certain joy and yet with a certain apprehension. The cause for joy is that an episcopal consecration, like a priestly ordination, means the continuation of the Church's sacramental powers, the chief means of saving souls. This continuation is necessary in all times of the Church's history, but is especially necessary in these times, when the priesthood and episcopacy are all but extinct, due to the ravages of the Novus Ordo. It would be an unthinkable negligence to permit the cessation of the Catholic priesthood for lack of validly consecrated bishops.

    The cause for apprehension is that the episcopacy is a greater power, and therefore carries a greater responsibility. In a way, however, I already have this responsibility. Since bishops do not have to govern dioceses, their great responsibility today is to ordain worthy candidates to the priesthood. Since I am already deeply involved in the training of priests, I feel that my responsibilities will not change substantially. For the rector of the seminary is the one whom the ordaining bishop trusts when the candidate comes before him at the ordination ceremony. In many cases the ordaining bishop has never seen the candidate before, but merely places confidence in the judgement of the rector and in the training which he and the seminary faculty has given to the young man.

    The bishop must also select priests to consecrate as bishops, when the necessity arises, and this too is a serious responsibility.

    Bishops in these times are not truly dignitaries, since they are not appointed by the ecclesiastical authority. Bishops today function merely as priests do, that is, they are there in the emergency of Vatican II to provide sacraments to the people. The only difference is that bishops may give more sacraments than priests, and therefore their service to the Mystical Body of Christ is augmented. They merely have more to do.

    St. Thomas says that the episcopacy is an extension of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is something like putting an extra room on an existing house. The priesthood is a power over the real body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and the episcopacy is a power over the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, the Church. The bishop can ordain and consecrate, and in such a way sees to the extension and continuation of the Mystical Body of Christ. Because bishops have a sacramental power which relates to the Mystical Body of Christ, in ordinary times they have jurisdiction, the ability to make laws, and are dignitaries. Even auxiliary bishops, who had no jurisdiction, were given titular sees, ancient dioceses which no longer had any Catholics in them, to show the connection of the bishop to the governance of the Mystical Body. In our times, however, traditional bishops and priests lack the power to nominate to episcopal sees, even titular ones, and the function of the bishop is limited to sacramental powers.

    In the final analysis, therefore, the episcopacy merely means the assignment of more work to do for the glory of God. May God grant me the grace to do this work efficaciously, to use the power of the holy episcopacy only for the glory of God and His Church, and to solidify others in their Faith and to edify them in the practice of virtue.

    Sincerely yours in Christ,

    Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #7 on: August 21, 2013, 10:53:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
    Apostolicity: we are united to the Apostles by the authority. My priesthood comes from the Apostles; your priesthood will come from the Apostles. We are the children of those who gave us the Episcopate. My episcopate descends from the saint Pope Pius V and for him; we go back to the Apostles. As for the apostolic faith, we believe the same faith as the Apostles. We do not change anything and we do not want to change anything.
    Then the Holiness. We are not going to do compliments or praises to us.  If we don’t want to consider ourselves, let’s consider the others and let’s consider the fruits of our apostolate, the fruits of the vocations, of our religious and the fruits of Catholic families. The good and holy Catholic families germinate thanks to your apostolate. It is a fact, nobody denies it. Even progressive visitors of Rome stated the good quality of our work. When Mgr Perl said the sisters of Saint Pré and Fanjeaux that in bases like this it will be necessary to reconstruct the Church, it is not, regardless, a small compliment.
    All this shows that we are the one who have the features of the Church visible.
    If there is still a visibility of the Church today is thanks to you.
    These signs are not already in the other.


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #8 on: August 21, 2013, 12:24:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
    Apostolicity: we are united to the Apostles by the authority. My priesthood comes from the Apostles; your priesthood will come from the Apostles. We are the children of those who gave us the Episcopate. My episcopate descends from the saint Pope Pius V and for him; we go back to the Apostles. As for the apostolic faith, we believe the same faith as the Apostles. We do not change anything and we do not want to change anything.
    Then the Holiness. We are not going to do compliments or praises to us.  If we don’t want to consider ourselves, let’s consider the others and let’s consider the fruits of our apostolate, the fruits of the vocations, of our religious and the fruits of Catholic families. The good and holy Catholic families germinate thanks to your apostolate. It is a fact, nobody denies it. Even progressive visitors of Rome stated the good quality of our work. When Mgr Perl said the sisters of Saint Pré and Fanjeaux that in bases like this it will be necessary to reconstruct the Church, it is not, regardless, a small compliment.
    All this shows that we are the one who have the features of the Church visible.
    If there is still a visibility of the Church today is thanks to you.
    These signs are not already in the other.


    I'm not sure how this would show that our Catholic Bishops are not Catholic Bishops in the true sense.  Lefebvre, Thuc and Castro-Meyer continued the true Church.  Not just materially but formally.  The Church did not die with them anymore than true authority died with John the Evangelist.  They had the Apostolic Mandate and passed it on.  They did what must be done and what God and any valid Pope would have them to do.  Not in any illegal sense.  But in the Catholic sense.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #9 on: August 21, 2013, 12:27:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

    Quote
    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.

    http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... ations.htm


    The good bishop erred in other ecclesiastical matters much less nuanced than the current topic.  And went back and forth on a lot of things.  He thought Paul 6 was Pope for heaven sakes.  Of course he is not going to think he has jurisdiction.  He's "popes" said he didn't.  He was "excommunicated" by his "Popes".  And you are going by what he says on this topic?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #10 on: August 21, 2013, 12:57:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also want to add that I do not think a lay person puts his soul in peril for having an opinion on either side of the issue or for not being sure one way or the other.  Ambrose has been prompt in responding to my writing but it has taken him some weeks to respond to quotes I have posted for him to respond to by Griff here and elsewhere.  By "weeks" I mean he has yet to respond.  But that is why I started this thread so we can keep this topic right here and so I don't miss anything he posts.

    Ambrose has proven to be quite knowledgeable and civil and is one I admire on this forum.

    I believe the reason why Griff is difficult to refute by taking a quote of his and explaining where it is definitively wrong is because he is right or can't be proven to be definitively wrong.

    I would lump this debate into the category, in regards to essentialness or lack there off, in the "una cum" category or the "pre-1955 liturgy" category.  Holding an erroneous opinion on this issue does not make one a non-member of the Church or put one outside the Church.  The issues are important but no one should die trying to defend them until a valid Pope settles it.  

    Castigating others and using calumny and detraction to undermine those you disagree with can put you mortal sin however.

    This thread seems rather civil so far and this pleases me very much.  That is why I got of the anonymous thread on this issue so as to avoid wasteful and distasteful aspersions against my character.  

    It is important to remember that I present the minority view so as to better understand both sides of the issue.  Not as something I would die to defend.  Griff is 100% sure he is right I believe.  But I am not 100% sure.  Griff has thoroughly studied the issue and makes sense to me.  Hopefully I can not be faulted for that.  If he didn't make sense I would be the first to tell him.

    It is not the counter arguments presented thus far that have made me less than 100% sure but the intelligent people who have made the arguments.  Perhaps it is there civility towards me that has not repulsed me from reading and assimilating their comments as well.

    Personally I was somewhat glad the issue died as I wanted to clarify the far more important salvation issue that so many traditional Catholics seem confused about.

    But I was dragged back in by my anonymous detractor.   Perhaps the anonymous detractor can take some solace in that.    

    But as I said I am pleased that the discussion is "to the point" rather than "to the person" instead of the opposite as was done in the anonymous thread.  

    I'm more concerned with the truth than opening a thread where haters can get their petty jabs in.  And I thank all the civil commentators out there for keeping the discussion Catholic in regards to the charitable aspect of the discussion.

    I hope no one gets angry over the issue or frustrated with me.  Just give it your best shot and leave the rest in God's hands.  If you can't convince me and you are right that is my problem.  So long as you are convinced you are correct and sure that that objections raised have been sufficiently debunked to YOUR satisfaction.  No need to worry about what I think.  

    I'm not sure how holding a position on either side of the issue negatively effects things.  It can, however, positively effect home-aloners, who once convinced of the plausibility of Griff's conclusion who will now avail themselves of the soul-saving Sacraments.  

    Holding Griff's opinion will not put anyone outside the Church or make any members into non-members but it could help the home-aloners.  That is secondary and subjective in relation to the correctness of the conclusion but the point is made to allay the fears of those who get up in arms and take it personal when a point is made that contradicts their opinion.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #11 on: August 21, 2013, 01:56:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: SJB
    Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

    Quote
    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.

    http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... ations.htm


    The good bishop erred in other ecclesiastical matters much less nuanced than the current topic.  And went back and forth on a lot of things.  He thought Paul 6 was Pope for heaven sakes.  Of course he is not going to think he has jurisdiction.  He's "popes" said he didn't.  He was "excommunicated" by his "Popes".  And you are going by what he says on this topic?

    The point is that NOBOBY believes they have jurisdiction that Griff wants to attribute to them. They themselves don't even agree with GR.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #12 on: August 21, 2013, 02:44:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: SJB
    Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

    Quote
    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.

    http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... ations.htm


    The good bishop erred in other ecclesiastical matters much less nuanced than the current topic.  And went back and forth on a lot of things.  He thought Paul 6 was Pope for heaven sakes.  Of course he is not going to think he has jurisdiction.  He's "popes" said he didn't.  He was "excommunicated" by his "Popes".  And you are going by what he says on this topic?

    The point is that NOBOBY believes they have jurisdiction that Griff wants to attribute to them. They themselves don't even agree with GR.


    I do understand that point.  But objectively it does not prove anything.  But I believe some traditional clergy are open to it.  

    Griff himself gives an explanation as to why many, most have not consider or do not believe they have Jurisdiction.

    I will try to find the quote and post it.

    We all entered unprecedented waters.  England on a world wide scale without a Pope.  Even the key actors may not be fully aware of the role they play.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #13 on: August 21, 2013, 03:47:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Griff himself gives an explanation as to why many, most have not consider or do not believe they have Jurisdiction.

    Because they simply cannot. They don't even claim the office in competition with the conciliar bishop.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1093/-825
    • Gender: Male
    FOR AMBROSE
    « Reply #14 on: August 22, 2013, 06:39:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote
    Griff himself gives an explanation as to why many, most have not consider or do not believe they have Jurisdiction.

    Because they simply cannot. They don't even claim the office in competition with the conciliar bishop.


    Lefebvre was a formal Apostolic Bishop.  According to his rational he became an un formal apostolic bishop because of he relation or lack thereof to the NO?

    It doesn't make sense.

    Those who kept the faith and past on Apostolic Succession are the Church, not those who left it and hold the physical buildings.

    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16