Author Topic: Fr. Cekada Answers RR Objections (Read 6478 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:13:41 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
The following is infallibly condemned as an error:

“If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” (Denz . 646. See also Denz . 661)

The authority of an ecuмenical council teaches that even if the pope is foreknown to be a "son of perdition and of the devil", he is still the pope.

You continue to confuse "wickedness" with being Catholic or otherwise eligible to be Pope. Even the most evil, perverted, malicious, hateful Catholic man who ever lived can be a legitimate pope, while even the most holy woman saint (say, a St. Therese of Lisieux) can never be pope.

At least we are getting to a root cause of her difficulty. Hopefully she will grasp this and take it from there.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:31:11 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I would imagine that part of the perpetuity of the office is the binding effect of its laws. While it seems absurd (to have a 1000 year interregnum), I cannot locate a principle which would clearly result in a sede vacante having a time limit.

I agree that it's not about time per se, since there's no substantial difference between 3 years or 10 years or 50 years. It has to be about some kind of juridical continuity, the precise nature of which eludes me ... which is why I think it would be helpful for Father Cekada to dig a little deeper into the subject.

I would think the principle would have to be ordinary jurisdiction. As I understand it, this is a de fide teaching that the whole of the hierarchy of the Church can not fail (otherwise our Lord's promise would be in vain). So long as the hierarchy is intact, even if it and the Church were reduced to a small remnant, than the Church being a perfect society, would always have the capability to elect her head.

I don't have the quote on hand, but one major theologian gave the example of if all the Cardinals being lost/killed/MIA in a war or earthquake, then the power to elect a pope would devolve to the Bishops in an imperfect general council or to the clergy in Rome. I have read both but I am not sure which the theologians say comes next after the cardinals in the order.

I also remember reading somewhere (might have been Bellarmine forums) the analogy of the beard. If we know that a one days growth is not a beard, if a two days growth is not a beard and a three days growth is not yet a beard, it is obviously wrong to conclude there is no such thing as a beard. We know that beards exist, even if we cannot come to an exact agreement as to when stubble becomes a beard. I thought that was a good analogy about the possible length of time of an interregnum.

The only problem I see with the idea that ordinary jurisdiction is the key to continuity is that the definition of ordinary jurisdiction seems to have changed over time. Today, we have traditionalists insisting that unless a bishop was a written mandate signed by the Pope, he does not have OJ and he has not been sent. Whereas in the early Church there was no such thing required. I think this issue should be studied carefully. The fundamental concept behind OJ is the power to bind the conscience of the faithful. Is any traditionalist going to deny that his conscience is bound by his traditional priest? Is he going to deny that the traditional priest's bishop can also bind his conscience? It's true that there is no universal jurisdiction during a interregnum but nevertheless OJ continues.

I'm willing to accept that OJ is indeed a principle of continuity during an interregnum but I do not accept that only a written mandate from the Pope can suffice to establish such jurisdiction.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:42:33 AM »

The beard analogy makes me chuckle. I have known some guys who shave in the morning and by the late afternoon it would be possible to argue that they have a legitimate beard.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:05:07 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Luker
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I would imagine that part of the perpetuity of the office is the binding effect of its laws. While it seems absurd (to have a 1000 year interregnum), I cannot locate a principle which would clearly result in a sede vacante having a time limit.

I agree that it's not about time per se, since there's no substantial difference between 3 years or 10 years or 50 years. It has to be about some kind of juridical continuity, the precise nature of which eludes me ... which is why I think it would be helpful for Father Cekada to dig a little deeper into the subject.

I would think the principle would have to be ordinary jurisdiction. As I understand it, this is a de fide teaching that the whole of the hierarchy of the Church can not fail (otherwise our Lord's promise would be in vain). So long as the hierarchy is intact, even if it and the Church were reduced to a small remnant, than the Church being a perfect society, would always have the capability to elect her head.

I don't have the quote on hand, but one major theologian gave the example of if all the Cardinals being lost/killed/MIA in a war or earthquake, then the power to elect a pope would devolve to the Bishops in an imperfect general council or to the clergy in Rome. I have read both but I am not sure which the theologians say comes next after the cardinals in the order.

I also remember reading somewhere (might have been Bellarmine forums) the analogy of the beard. If we know that a one days growth is not a beard, if a two days growth is not a beard and a three days growth is not yet a beard, it is obviously wrong to conclude there is no such thing as a beard. We know that beards exist, even if we cannot come to an exact agreement as to when stubble becomes a beard. I thought that was a good analogy about the possible length of time of an interregnum.

The only problem I see with the idea that ordinary jurisdiction is the key to continuity is that the definition of ordinary jurisdiction seems to have changed over time. Today, we have traditionalists insisting that unless a bishop was a written mandate signed by the Pope, he does not have OJ and he has not been sent. Whereas in the early Church there was no such thing required. I think this issue should be studied carefully. The fundamental concept behind OJ is the power to bind the conscience of the faithful. Is any traditionalist going to deny that his conscience is bound by his traditional priest? Is he going to deny that the traditional priest's bishop can also bind his conscience? It's true that there is no universal jurisdiction during a interregnum but nevertheless OJ continues.

I'm willing to accept that OJ is indeed a principle of continuity during an interregnum but I do not accept that only a written mandate from the Pope can suffice to establish such jurisdiction.

Well-stated.

Cantarella · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:20:12 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

At least we are getting to a root cause of her difficulty. Hopefully she will grasp this and take it from there.

Let's take it from here. The difference between evil and heresy is understood.

The problem of a heretical Pope. (Heresy, as opossed of evil, vice, sin, etc).

St. Bellarmine posits five "opinions" for consideration:

1. The pope cannot be heretical.

2. The pope, falling into heresy, even purely internal heresy, ipso facto loses the papacy.

3. Even if the pope falls into heresy, the pope would not lose the papacy.

4. An heretical pope is not removed ipso facto , but must be declared deposed by the Church.

5. An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.

For all purposes, it seems that the 5th postulate is the one that is most agreeable to sedevacantists: An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.

First, if the cociliar popes lost their office due to manifest, public, and formal heresy, then the Church has been over half a century now without a visible leader. We know by De Fide teaching (the visibility of the Church, and the primacy of Peter) that this is impossible. If the Church is now without a visible leader, the Church then becomes invisible.

Second, there is not way for layman to judge this formal heresy in the Roman Pointiff. The judgment of formal heresy is a serious one, and one which must be established by a competent authority. There is no one here with the competence to accuse the Pope of formal heresy.

Therefore, sedevacantism is a theological speculation at best. One can think that there is the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all one could do. That is the full extent of the sedevacantist position right there.

Personally, the concern is the authentic Catholic Faith that will bring salvation to this sinner soul. There is not time to waste. Let others with more time on their hands be preocupied in this short earthly exile with theological "speculations".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:24:39 AM »

Written mandate, no; I don't see that as necessary by Divine Law.

Appointment (with at least implicit papal approval) during the life of a legitimate pope, maybe. Yet if a legitimate Pope appointed a bishop, then died, and then that bishop consecrated / appointed a successor during the interregnum, does that establish a continuity, even if once removed? Archishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were both appointed by Pius XII. Bishop Thuc by Pius XI. Bishop Thuc also appeared to have a mandate from Pius XI and Pius XII to consecrate without explicit papal approval.

I don't think that any of this is clear.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:29:51 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Let's take it from here. The difference between evil and heresy is understood.

Except that you've been deliberately blurring them in your opposition to sedevacantism. Your have posted quotes which refer to evil men still being popes as somehow being evidence against sedevacantism.

Quote

First, if the cociliar popes lost their office due to manifest, public, and formal heresy, then the Church has been over half a century now without a visible leader. We know by De Fide teaching (the visibility of the Church, and the primacy of Peter) that this is impossible.

Back to your bias. You won't address the actual arguments here. Please explain before posting again PRECISELY how long an interregnum is possible without the Church's having defected.

Quote

Second, there is not way for layman to judge this formal heresy in the Roman Pointiff. The judgment of formal heresy is a serious one, and one which must be established by a competent authority. There is no one here with the competence to accuse the Pope of formal heresy.

This is a more substantial argument that has already several threads devoted to it.

So this again proves that you've decided up front to reject sedevacantism and are now in search of proof for your predetermined conclusion.

Before you post again, please tell us all how many years the Holy See can be vacant before the Church defects and becomes "invisible", as you say.

Nishant · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:46:05 AM »

Dear Ladislaus, I discussed this with Fr. Cekada on IA before, I may post a snippet of that conversation, because the view Father espoused there is very interesting.

Anyway, I will tell you what the issue is, this is explained by theologians like Cajetan, Franzelin, Journet - during an interregnum all powers that have already been communicated by the Pope to the bishops remain. But no new powers can be communicated to them, no new bishops can be appointed, because only the Pope can effect that communication, (Cajetan says, “The council, if abstraction be made of the Pope, can do no more than can the particular powers that compose it: it can establish no bishop, when the superiors to whom that office reverts are lacking.")

The Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office. The bishops have particular ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of their office. These are stable powers, once established, they remain. But new appointments cannot be effected, unless the power to do that has been communicated by the Pope to some bishop.

What is the consequence of this? It means that the "new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented" (Journet) that only the bishops to whom the power has already been communicated endure.

This is why a short interregnum is substantially different from a 100+ year interregnum for example.

In the first interregnum, the bishops to whom power has been communicated will not all die, and new appointees are not necessarily required by the Church.

But in the long interregnum, they will be, and therefore new appointees are required, but if the Pope has not communicated power to others, these appointments cannot be effected, because the efficient cause of those appointments is the universal jurisdiction itself.

Quote from: Journet

During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “ (De Comparatione etc, cap. vi, 74) ... the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance .. There is nothing whatever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant “ (Denz. 653)

Quote from: Franzelin

... there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:50:23 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth

At least we are getting to a root cause of her difficulty. Hopefully she will grasp this and take it from there.

Let's take it from here. The difference between evil and heresy is understood.

The problem of a heretical Pope. (Heresy, as opossed of evil, vice, sin, etc).

St. Bellarmine posits five "opinions" for consideration:

1. The pope cannot be heretical.

2. The pope, falling into heresy, even purely internal heresy, ipso facto loses the papacy.

3. Even if the pope falls into heresy, the pope would not lose the papacy.

4. An heretical pope is not removed ipso facto , but must be declared deposed by the Church.

5. An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.

For all purposes, it seems that the 5th postulate is the one that is most agreeable to sedevacantists: An heretical pope is deposed ipso facto at the moment that his heresy becomes manifest — that is, public and widely known.

First, if the cociliar popes lost their office due to manifest, public, and formal heresy, then the Church has been over half a century now without a visible leader. We know by De Fide teaching (the visibility of the Church, and the primacy of Peter) that this is impossible. If the Church is now without a visible leader, the Church then becomes invisible.

Second, there is not way for layman to judge this formal heresy in the Roman Pointiff. The judgment of formal heresy is a serious one, and one which must be established by a competent authority. There is no one here with the competence to accuse the Pope of formal heresy.

Therefore, sedevacantism is a theological speculation at best. One can think that there is the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all one could do. That is the full extent of the sedevacantist position right there.

Personally, the concern is the authentic Catholic Faith that will bring salvation to this sinner soul. There is not time to waste. Let others with more time on their hands be preocupied in this short earthly exile with theological "speculations".

Very good. At least now we can discuss this from the same plane.

It seems you list five opinions as if any of the five can be true and that one is as good as the other. But have you actually written what Saint Robert Bellarmine whose feast day we celebrate today wrote?

Quote

The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30.)

If you can admit this we can move to your next objection.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #39 on:** May 13, 2014, 01:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear Ladislaus, I discussed this with Fr. Cekada on IA before, I may post a snippet of that conversation, because the view Father espoused there is very interesting.

Anyway, I will tell you what the issue is, this is explained by theologians like Cajetan, Franzelin, Journet - during an interregnum all powers that have already been communicated by the Pope to the bishops remain. But no new powers can be communicated to them, no new bishops can be appointed, because only the Pope can effect that communication, (Cajetan says, “The council, if abstraction be made of the Pope, can do no more than can the particular powers that compose it: it can establish no bishop, when the superiors to whom that office reverts are lacking.")

The Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of his office. The bishops have particular ordinary jurisdiction by virtue of their office. These are stable powers, once established, they remain. But new appointments cannot be effected, unless the power to do that has been communicated by the Pope to some bishop.

What is the consequence of this? It means that the "new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented" (Journet) that only the bishops to whom the power has already been communicated endure.

This is why a short interregnum is substantially different from a 100+ year interregnum for example.

In the first interregnum, the bishops to whom power has been communicated will not all die, and new appointees are not necessarily required by the Church.

But in the long interregnum, they will be, and therefore new appointees are required, but if the Pope has not communicated power to others, these appointments cannot be effected, because the efficient cause of those appointments is the universal jurisdiction itself.

Quote from: Journet
During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “ (De Comparatione etc, cap. vi, 74) ... the twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance .. There is nothing whatever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant “ (Denz. 653)

Quote from: Franzelin
... there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

I don't think your conception of jurisdiction matches up too well with God's conception of jurisdiction. By your definition the citizens of the USA would still be subjects of the ancestors of King George III. Or maybe the ancestors of King Richard II? How do you explain the case of Pope Martin I and Pope Eugene I?

74 21 July 649 – 16 September 655 (6 years, 57 days) Pope Saint Martin I
75 10 August 654 – 1 June 657 (2 years, 295 days) Pope Saint Eugene I

Two saints who reigned as Pope simultaneously. I really don't think jurisdiction is as simple and easy to explain as you make it out to be Nishant. Furthermore, your position with respect to the status of Francis' claim to the papacy rests entirely on this very obscure non-scriptural concept of ordinary jurisdiction (jurisdiction is scriptural but not the concept of it which Nishant is proposing) which is extremely difficult for even great theologians to explain.

But the concept that a public heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office is so basic that anyone can understand it. Not only that but it has a very clear scriptural basis. cf. Gal 1:8-9 It also has a very clear basis in Canon Law. cf. Canon 188.4. And you never address this weakness in your position. You ignore it. It is the pink elephant in the room every time you start complaining about the lack of jurisdiction. I am completely secure in my position. No amount of sophistry with regard to the jurisdiction argument is ever going to overturn the fact that a public heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** May 13, 2014, 02:15:19 PM »

:applause: :applause: :applause:

That is to the above post BTW.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2014, 02:59:50 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

But new appointments cannot be effected, unless the power to do that has been communicated by the Pope to some bishop.

I'm not sure that I buy this. For many centuries in the Church, Popes did not directly appoint all the world's bishops, nor did they appoint other bishops to appoint bishops. Very often the priests of the city with a vacated episcopate would select their candidate, and then bishops from neighboring cities would come in to consecrate the candidate.

In addition, the Eastern Patriarchal Churches have always enjoyed a relative autonomy from this process. These Patriarchs appoint the bishops without prior consult from Rome and then send what they consider to be nothing more than a "notification" to Rome after the fact, but event that appears to be a relatively recent practice.

SJB · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2014, 05:53:57 PM »

Here's a source explaining:

ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887
Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 149-151

339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?

A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule, made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.

340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.

341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.

342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.

343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.

344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?

A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #43 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:51:22 PM »

Correction: should be the descendants of King George III

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #44 on:** May 14, 2014, 07:32:18 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Here's a source explaining:

ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887
Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 149-151

339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?

A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule, made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.

340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.

341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.

342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.

343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.

344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?

A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.

Good post. Nothing to dispute there. Of course now like interregnums of old this does not mean that the Bishops united to Eternal Rome that were consecrated during such times were invalid.