Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Clemens Maria on May 11, 2014, 09:38:10 PM
-
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/)
Also, Fr. Cekada shows just how wildly misleading Robert J. Siscoe's CFN article was:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/bellarmine-fraud-copy/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/bellarmine-fraud-copy/)
A quote from the first link above:
C. The “Pope-by-Default” Objections. Defeated by an unassailable general principle that leads to a logical conclusion, the R&R camp will no doubt continue to offer the usual “Pope-by-default” objections, implying these can somehow turn a heretic into a true pope by default. “The Church must have one, and who else is there?” Here are the common ones, together with responses, based on the teachings of various pre-Vatican II theologians:
1. Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)
2. A long vacancy would change the nature of the Church. The monarchical nature of the Church “does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head.Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (Dorsch, de Ecclesia 2:196–7)
3. How could we then get a true pope one day? The various theories are direct divine intervention, the material/formal thesis and an imperfect general council, the latter of which is taught by the theologian Cajetan. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)
4. Sedevacantism destroys the visibility of the Church. There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth,” Lk 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body.
5. The universal acceptance of the post-Conciliar popes confirms that they are true popes. Circular argument: Heretics, who are outside the Church, confirm as head of the Church another heretic who is outside the Church. Well, nice if you can manage it! And besides, sedevacantists reject the post-Vatican II popes. What are we? Chopped liver? So the acceptance is clearly not universal.
6. It is impossible that so many Catholics could be wrong and only the sedevacantists right. “There seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (Berry, Church of Christ, 155)
I have to say that this quote answers all of Nishant's objections very well.
-
oops. I guess I was wrong. Fr Cekada's website is frcekada.com. I thought it was sgg.org or traditionalmass.org.
-
These, in very concise form, are the same responses many of us have been making to these objections here at CI.
Really the most serious objections are
1) the perpetual successors
and
5) universal acceptance
Father Cekada did not spend enough time on #1 to really refute the argument. What does it mean for the "power" of the papacy to be perpetual? It's obvious that the absence of an actual Pope does not cause the power to cease. Are we talking about juridical continuity? What do we mean here? He should elaborate on that.
With regard to #5, the reason that universal acceptance is considered the criterion for establishing the dogmatic fact of the papacy is precisely because theologians consider this universal acceptance (by the episcopate) to be infallible, since anything else would lead to a defection of the Church. Yet these same bishops can fail by universally teaching the errors of Vatican II? That doesn't make sense. If they can fail by promulgating Vatican II and universally accepting and promulgating the New Mass, then why can't they have failed in acknowledging a false Pope? Such acknowledgement cannot con-validate a faulty election either.
What's interesting, though, is that the infallibility of the episcopate has always been tied to the papacy. If the bishops were to hold an Ecuмenical Council but in the end the Pope were to reject it as a "Robber Council", then it would not have any infallibility or authority on its own.
-
A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.
-
A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.
That's my complaint as well of the Three Barristeers of the R&R (Ferrara, Salza & Siscoe): They devote more ink (or pixels) to trying to score stylistic polemic than they do engaging the actual content of sede arguments.
They should just pick a champion among themselves and have him go head-to-head with Fr Cekada in a public debate.
-
A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.
That's my complaint as well of the Three Barristeers of the R&R (Ferrara, Salza & Siscoe): They devote more ink (or pixels) to trying to score stylistic polemic than they do engaging the actual content of sede arguments.
They should just pick a champion among themselves and have him go head-to-head with Fr Cekada in a public debate.
My point was that Fr. Cekada isn't the one to lead the sede side of the debate.
-
1. Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
The doctrine of Perpetual Succession made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them. There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it.
-
1. Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
The doctrine of Perpetual Succession made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them. There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it.
You are calling Fr. Salaverri a modernist then, and would have us accept YOUR "definition" of perpetual successors over his, an approved theologian. How do you expect to be taken seriously? You shouldn't.
It's laughable that you use the argument that perpetual succession is "vitally important for dogmatic purity..." as some sort of proof for your position. Have you LOOKED at the conciliar pope's dogmatic "purity"??
-
A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.
That's my complaint as well of the Three Barristeers of the R&R (Ferrara, Salza & Siscoe): They devote more ink (or pixels) to trying to score stylistic polemic than they do engaging the actual content of sede arguments.
They should just pick a champion among themselves and have him go head-to-head with Fr Cekada in a public debate.
My point was that Fr. Cekada isn't the one to lead the sede side of the debate.
I personally would take John Lane over most SV clergy. Though I think Bishop Pivuranus might be an improvement over Cekeda. There are probably plenty of well-informed clergy that could do so that are not out in cyber space so much. At least I would hope so.
We have seen lay-people do a better job in presenting the Thuc issue (Mario Derksen), the SV is (Gregorious - if he is a lay-person) and the SV issue (John Lane). I'm not sure if that is a sad commentary on the clergy or proof on how busy they are traveling the country saving souls. If the later they certainly are to be more esteemed.
-
I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:
Speaking of respect...
On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".
I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.
But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.
At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.
The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.
-
I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:
Speaking of respect...
On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".
I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.
But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.
At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.
The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.
And this would be as true with a R & R Priest as with a SV Priest I am sure.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though. Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years. There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante. Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though. Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years. There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante. Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.
I would be interested as well. I am not sure any SVs have answered that question. Perhaps you can check on the Bellarmine forum. But it really might not be any more than that. Things happen at the end that never happen during. The R and R's say it never happened before. But nothing happened before until it happened the first time. If you come across an answer to your objection please let me know.
-
I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:
Speaking of respect...
On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".
I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.
But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.
At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.
The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.
And this would be as true with a R & R Priest as with a SV Priest I am sure.
But of course.
What do you think I am, a bloody hypocrite?
-
I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:
Speaking of respect...
On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".
I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.
But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.
At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.
The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.
And this would be as true with a R & R Priest as with a SV Priest I am sure.
But of course.
What do you think I am, a bloody hypocrite?
Good response. I do not follow the R & R Priests but am supposing none quite fit the mold of the Priest you speak of. Perhaps SJB would agree. The SSPX, I suppose does not try to convert people to their way of thinking, the same as this SV Priest does I suppose.
But regardless I am glad you are balanced when it comes to critiquing.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though. Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years. There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante. Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.
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 don't think one exists, and I think the best we can do is pull out the old "God wouldn't allow that!" card, which has proved time and time again to be a rash and presumptuous way of argumentation, as if His ways were not unsearchable, or if His ways were ours.
But if we consider the errors of R&R, they are often found in what submission to authority and communion mean-- many believe that a picture in the vestibule and the inserting of the title "pope" is how Catholics submit to the Roman pontiff and remain in communion with him. Some will even dare to use "Unam Sanctam" against the sedevacantists, as if their not accepting the papacies of the last fifty years somehow made them not subject to the Roman pontiff-- the irony of course being that the R&R faithful reject the teachings and laws of these same pontiffs in toto. On the contrary, subjection to the pope means following his laws, but not just the laws the reigning pontiff creates himself, but those which were created before him-- otherwise, taking the R&R reading of "Unam Sanctam" no one could go to Heaven during an interregnum! So in this way, perpetuity is perpetual (besides the obvious ways that the office itself will remain until the end of time) in that it's decrees, laws and teachings are perpetual. I will see if there is a source which supports this reading, but it makes sense to me.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though. Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years. There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante. Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.
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 don't think one exists, and I think the best we can do is pull out the old "God wouldn't allow that!" card, which has proved time and time again to be a rash and presumptuous way of argumentation, as if His ways were not unsearchable, or if His ways were ours.
But if we consider the errors of R&R, they are often found in what submission to authority and communion mean-- many believe that a picture in the vestibule and the inserting of the title "pope" is how Catholics submit to the Roman pontiff and remain in communion with him. Some will even dare to use "Unam Sanctam" against the sedevacantists, as if their not accepting the papacies of the last fifty years somehow made them not subject to the Roman pontiff-- the irony of course being that the R&R faithful reject the teachings and laws of these same pontiffs in toto. On the contrary, subjection to the pope means following his laws, but not just the laws the reigning pontiff creates himself, but those which were created before him-- otherwise, taking the R&R reading of "Unam Sanctam" no one could go to Heaven during an interregnum! So in this way, perpetuity is perpetual (besides the obvious ways that the office itself will remain until the end of time) in that it's decrees, laws and teachings are perpetual. I will see if there is a source which supports this reading, but it makes sense to me.
But a binding set of laws would mean that we could not consecrate and ordain as if their was no "real" hierarchy hidden in the N.O.?
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason. If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.
I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though. Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years. There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante. Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.
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 don't think one exists, and I think the best we can do is pull out the old "God wouldn't allow that!" card, which has proved time and time again to be a rash and presumptuous way of argumentation, as if His ways were not unsearchable, or if His ways were ours.
But if we consider the errors of R&R, they are often found in what submission to authority and communion mean-- many believe that a picture in the vestibule and the inserting of the title "pope" is how Catholics submit to the Roman pontiff and remain in communion with him. Some will even dare to use "Unam Sanctam" against the sedevacantists, as if their not accepting the papacies of the last fifty years somehow made them not subject to the Roman pontiff-- the irony of course being that the R&R faithful reject the teachings and laws of these same pontiffs in toto. On the contrary, subjection to the pope means following his laws, but not just the laws the reigning pontiff creates himself, but those which were created before him-- otherwise, taking the R&R reading of "Unam Sanctam" no one could go to Heaven during an interregnum! So in this way, perpetuity is perpetual (besides the obvious ways that the office itself will remain until the end of time) in that it's decrees, laws and teachings are perpetual. I will see if there is a source which supports this reading, but it makes sense to me.
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate while not knowing what I'm talking about. What you say makes sense. I get a little confused on when disciplinary law can, may or might be able to be dispensed with and when they cannot.
-
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.
-
The SSPX, I suppose does not try to convert people to their way of thinking, the same as this SV Priest does I suppose.
Well, some do and they are just as bad in my opinion.
-
The SSPX, I suppose does not try to convert people to their way of thinking, the same as this SV Priest does I suppose.
Well, some do and they are just as bad in my opinion.
There we go. Thank you for verifying what I suspected.
-
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.
-
Let's not confuse the power to elect a pope vs. the perpetual succession of the Papacy.
With regard to the beard analogy, that's what I why I said that there's no essential difference between 3 years, 10 years, 50 years.
So the question remains unanswered. I don't think it's enough to say that there must always be valid bishops floating around. What does it mean for there to be a "hierarchy" when there's no actual formal pope? All this remains unclear to me.
-
This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors. It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.
Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism. Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies. So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.
Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.
Not personal bias here, only loyalty to the True Faith and a sincere concern for the salvation of immortal souls. Posts are made in the spirit of true charity, not unnecessary bitter zeal.
To imagine the glorious Holy Roman Catholic Church of all ages without a visible Bishop of Rome for over half a century is an absurdity. Eastern Orthodoxy would be then a legitimate choice for nostalgic Catholics. Liturgies at the ROCOR are rich and extraordinary, by the way.
When it comes to the Roman Pontiff, not even if he is a freemason, could he be deprived of his office by any canonical process.
The Council of Constance defined against the notion of loss of papal office due to sin, even publicly manifest scandal. These errors were declared in repsonse to the heresies of John Hus, one of the precursors of Protestantism, whose ideas about the Church militant helped form the basis for Protestant ecclesiology.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.
-
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 earthquake was V2 Lefebre, Thuc, Mayer etc. handed it on to their successors.
-
Let's not confuse the power to elect a pope vs. the perpetual succession of the Papacy.
With regard to the beard analogy, that's what I why I said that there's no essential difference between 3 years, 10 years, 50 years.
So the question remains unanswered. I don't think it's enough to say that there must always be valid bishops floating around. What does it mean for there to be a "hierarchy" when there's no actual formal pope? All this remains unclear to me.
There is a mystery to it. It means that Christ Who was a strong handsome man is now bloody and beaten beyond recognition. It is the final test of faith. The angels had theirs, Adam and Eve had theirs, the Jews had theirs and in the last time we have ours. We have to hold fast until the end despite not having all the answers. Even now it is difficult to convert others to the Catholic Church because they assume the heretic/apostate/pedophile click to be it. We have to say "no no not that, it is scattered throughout under ground as it was at the beginning". The story ends as it begins.
The end times are different from all the rest. We won't be able to figure it all out until we are on the other side and realize how stupid we were.
-
Not personal bias here, only loyalty to the True Faith and a sincere concern for the salvation of immortal souls. Posts are made in the spirit of true charity, not unnecessary bitter zeal.
I didn't say bitter zeal, just bias. You clearly have decided that sedevacantism MUST be false and then are seeking various reasons for this belief after the fact. That's begging the question and this kind of predisposition does not usually lead to truth.
To imagine the glorious Holy Roman Catholic Church of all ages without a visible Bishop of Rome for over half a century is an absurdity.
Thus your biased predisposition. You need to show based on theological reasons why it's theologically not possible for this to have happened. You have a gut emotional response that this would be absurd. But it's not rational. If the See can remain vacant for 3 years, why not 10? If for 10, then why not 20? There's no substantial difference between one length of time or another. There's no magical time duration that would cause the Church to defect, such as 23 years, 5 months, 2 days, 3 hours, and 53 seconds. So you have to explain based on some other criterion how the Church would have defected by now.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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)
... 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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
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)
... 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.
-
:applause: :applause: :applause:
That is to the above post BTW.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Correction: should be the descendants of King George III
-
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.
-
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
-
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Correct. Valid in the full sense of the word.
-
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
-
Good explanation by Rev. Smith.
Dear Clemens Maria, you and I have discussed this before, and I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I have given you some sources and the reasons for my perspective, each of us must make the best judgment we can, guided by prayer and study.
I'm not sure what the point of your questions is, since secular democracies and the Catholic Church have an entirely different hierarchical constitution. Let me answer the point about where canonical mission and ordinary jurisdiction are mentioned in Sacred Scripture.
Jesus gives the Keys to St. Peter, and explains the power to bind and loose in Mat 16:15-18. Theologians explain this is the power of jurisdiction. Our Lord shows it includes the power to excommunicate in Mat 18:17-18. Likewise, in Jn 20, the Lord connects the power to forgive sin with the mission He gives them, telling them that He sends them as the Father sent Him. St. Paul asks, How shall they preach, except they be sent? Already in the Old Testament, God had spoken in a similar way concerning those whom He had indeed sent and had not. The Church teaches that there will always be shepherds and teachers who were sent just as the Apostles were sent. Theologians understand this of the mission from the Pope, the means through which an individual receives the ordinary power of jurisdiction. We've seen the texts before,
"Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people have a right to know from whose hand our pastors have recived their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ... If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome ... they have not been sent, they are not pastors ... He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by Her pastors should come from a visible source. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us."
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election." This acceptance by the ecclesia docens proves infallibly the fulfilment of all conditions required for the validity of the election. The Society has mentioned this in its articles in the past, for example Fr. Boulet made reference to it, citing Cardinal Billot, in the article on sedevacantism. Beside this, the Society has mentioned the canon on perpetual successors and the problem with no bishop having ordinary jurisdiction.
-
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
Well, a couple used to. But that's beside the point. What's at issue here is the continuity of jurisdiction under sedevacante. Are you saying that the Eastern Bishops are all heretics also?
-
I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election."
But Nishant, you fail to address the contradiction. Why can't the bishops of the Church universally accept a false pope? Due to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. Yet these same bishops who due to their collective infallibility cannot accept a false pope CAN at the same time, despite the same infallibility, teach error to the Church??? That's a contradiction, so there's something wrong with the principle or your application thereof.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Why-isnt-RR-or-SV-victorious-yet-Been-45-years
-
I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election." This acceptance by the ecclesia docens proves infallibly the fulfilment of all conditions required for the validity of the election. The Society has mentioned this in its articles in the past, for example Fr. Boulet made reference to it, citing Cardinal Billot, in the article on sedevacantism. Beside this, the Society has mentioned the canon on perpetual successors and the problem with no bishop having ordinary jurisdiction.
So if I study at a Catholic seminary for 10+ years and then conclude that there is no Catholic God and then publish my conclusion for all to see, I am not a formal heretic? Are you serious?!!!
Can I claim that the Old Covenant is not revoked and continues to be a means of salvation for the Jews? Is that not a heresy? Do you think after studying many years at the seminary (pre-V2) I still would not know that the Church condemns that proposition?
By the way, the Church does not accept the Conciliar popes. The Conciliar Church accepts the Conciliar popes. The Catholic Church does not. The R&R Catholics reject them for all intents and purposes and the SV Catholics reject them explicitly and unambiguously.
I'm glad that you are finally addressing this issue Nishant.
-
I've explained the matter over which we differ before - the acceptance of the Conciliar Popes by the Church proves that they are not heretics, at least not public and formal heretics, because such acceptance is, as Wernz Vidal put it, "a sign and infallible effect of a valid election." This acceptance by the ecclesia docens proves infallibly the fulfilment of all conditions required for the validity of the election. The Society has mentioned this in its articles in the past, for example Fr. Boulet made reference to it, citing Cardinal Billot, in the article on sedevacantism. Beside this, the Society has mentioned the canon on perpetual successors and the problem with no bishop having ordinary jurisdiction.
So if I study at a Catholic seminary for 10+ years and then conclude that there is no Catholic God and then publish my conclusion for all to see, I am not a formal heretic? Are you serious?!!!
Can I claim that the Old Covenant is not revoked and continues to be a means of salvation for the Jews? Is that not a heresy? Do you think after studying many years at the seminary (pre-V2) I still would not know that the Church condemns that proposition?
By the way, the Church does not accept the Conciliar popes. The Conciliar Church accepts the Conciliar popes. The Catholic Church does not. The R&R Catholics reject them for all intents and purposes and the SV Catholics reject them explicitly and unambiguously.
I'm glad that you are finally addressing this issue Nishant.
Bravo! :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
Well, a couple used to. But that's beside the point. What's at issue here is the continuity of jurisdiction under sedevacante. Are you saying that the Eastern Bishops are all heretics also?
No.
-
I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
-
I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
Who do they claim appointed them and to what See?
-
I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
The lines of Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer and Mendez continued, they had the mandate and passed it on to those united to the Apostolic See with jurisdiction over their flocks vacated by apostate heretics. IMO of course, which really is not worth much in the technical theological zone. People keep looking to the Novus Ordo dioceses that have disappeared but their flocks/souls remain. Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer, Mendez and their apostolic successors continued the Church, they did not leave it or disobey a Pope or become schismatic in any way. They continued the Apostolic Succession as was done during past interregnums. The mandate, until the contrary is proven, is tacit as it was during past interregnums.
Now that I have definitively settled that let's move on to something else shall we. I'm glad we are all in agreement here. :cheers:
-
I believe Bishops Andrew Jacobs, Joseph Belzak, Giles Butler and Bonaventure Strandt all do.
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.
Or even that they had no jurisdiction. If, for instance, the Popes have always allowed Patriarchal Eastern Rites the ability to appoint Bishops (reserving only a kindof veto power after the fact to the Pope), then why wouldn't that permission be deemed to continue in a sedevacante period? I know this is New Code of Canon Law, but the 1990 Canon Law of the Eastern Churches expressly states that the Patriarchal Eastern Churches have the authority to appoint their own Bishops without explicit papal mandate. Even though this was codified in 1990, I believe that this has long been the case.
Maybe so, yet NO trad bishop suggests he has been appointed by anybody or holds any office with jurisdiction.
The lines of Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer and Mendez continued, they had the mandate and passed it on to those united to the Apostolic See with jurisdiction over their flocks vacated by apostate heretics. IMO of course, which really is not worth much in the technical theological zone. People keep looking to the Novus Ordo dioceses that have disappeared but their flocks/souls remain. Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer, Mendez and their apostolic successors continued the Church, they did not leave it or disobey a Pope or become schismatic in any way. They continued the Apostolic Succession as was done during past interregnums. The mandate, until the contrary is proven, is tacit as it was during past interregnums.
Now that I have definitively settled that let's move on to something else shall we. I'm glad we are all in agreement here. :cheers:
They are NOT successors to the Apostles by definition.
-
Woywod on Successors to the Apostles
210. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope. If some college has received the right to elect the bishop, Canon 321 shall be observed, which requires the absolute majority of votes of all those who have the right to vote. (Canon 329.)
213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff. (Canon 332.)
-
ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, Rev. S. B. SMITH, D.D. 1887
ART. II.
Are Bishops the Successors of the Apostles-From whom do Bishops hold?
539. Q. In what sense are bishops the successors of the apostles?
A.-I. It is certain that in some sense, bishops are the successors of the apostles; but in what sense? Before answering we premise: Three powers must be distinguished in the apostles: 1, the potestas sacerdotii, or the power to consecrate the body and blood of our Lord and forgive sins; I 2, the potestas ordinis episcopalis, or the plenitude of the priesthood-i.e., the power to ordain priests, confirm, etc.; 3, the potestas apostolatus-i.e., the power to forgive sins everywhere, appoint bishops all over the world, etc.: in a word, the power to exercise, subordinately to Peter jurisdiction without any limit as to place, persons, or matters (jurisdictio universalis). These three powers were given the apostles by Christ himself.
II. Having premised this, we reply: I. Bishops are, as a body, not as individuals, the successors of the apostles; in other words, the collegium episcoporum succeeded the collegium apostolorum. Hence, with the exception of the Roman Pontiff and perhaps the Bishop of Jerusalem, no individual bishop can claim to be the successor of the apostles in the sense that the see occupied by him had one of the apostles for its first bishop. It cannot be said, therefore, that this or that bishop is the successor, v.g., of Andrew or John. 2. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, as to the potestas ordinis. For bishops have, by virtue of their consecration, the same character episcopalis with the apostles, and hence the same power of order. 3. Bishops, moreover, are the successors of the apostles, quoad potestatem jurisdictionis, though not quoad aequalitatem, but only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis. We say, only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis, for the jurisdiction of the apostles, as we have shown, was universal; as such it was extraordinary, personal, and therefore lapsed with the apostles. The jurisdiction of bishops, on the other hand, is particular; what the apostles could do all the world over bishops can do only in their respective dioceses. Hence, the authority of bishops, as we have said, is similar, but not equal, to that of the apostles.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:
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.
From Fideliter:
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 circuмstances 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.
-
Can anyone please point me to where any of the above quotes affirm or deny that Catholics bishops consecrated in past interregnum's lacked apostolicity?