Any relation to Fr. Benjamin Selway from the Society of St. Pius V?They are cousins to the best of my knowledge.
Thuc line...
Who was/ were the co-consecrating bishop(s)?Bishop Daniel Dolan and Bishop Geert Jan Stuyver
Arguably, the dubiousness of validity of the Thuc line of episcopacy rivals the Novus Ordo. That branch of sedes point their fingers at others while refusing to remove the plank in their own eyes.
I don't necessarily doubt the validity of the Thuc line, but Fr. Selway being the latest in the Thuc line should be made transparent to people who might have issues with +Thuc. An argument can be made for the dubiousness.
The safest bet of line of valid episcopacy is the Bishop Williamson line. :incense:
The safest bet of line of valid episcopacy is the Bishop Williamson line. :incense:
I am not a fan, overall, of most Thuc line bishops ... to say the least. BUT ... the arguments (originally concocted by the SSPV for political reasons) against validity have no merit.I hear ya, brah.
Ladislaus says:I wasn't implying there is anything wrong with the other SSPX lines, but considering their posturing with Rome, it's best to stand with the Lion of Wimbledon and his subsequent line of Bishops.
So what's wrong with the other SSPX lines vis-a-vis validity? Do you consider +Williamson more certainly valid than +Fellay et al.?
Ladislaus says:Wrong analysis.
Sounds to me like you're conflating your support for +Williamson and the Resistance with the validity question.
Thuc line...I have no qualms with the Thuc-line. Des Lauriers was the confessor of Pope Pius XII and actually helped pen the Dogma of the Assumption of the BVM, as well as the Ottaviani Intervention. The most knit-picking and extreme group out there has said that there is no positive doubt in the matter. I admire Father Jenkins, but he truly makes no case for positive doubt of the Thuc lline. I've heard Fr. Jenkins call into question every single bishop except for the Lefebvre and Mendez line. He has even stated in one of his videos that the Eastern Orthodox episcopal lineage is dubious!!! The Church has never said such. He literally has a video about the finding of the child Jesus in the temple that is amazing except that he interrupts it for a few seconds to take a jab at Thuc line bishops saying that if they will justify the Thuc consecration that they will justify anything as if it were the worst evil to ever take place on the face of the earth. I've got to say that I admire the SSPV's wisdom in all areas except the Thuc line. It seems as if it is more personal than based on solid principle. I mean, if it was that serious to them, why not attempt to unite Traditional Catholics by offering to conditionally consecrate their bishops and clergy with their esteemed Mendez-line? Would one be correct in assuming they lack the charity to do so??
croix - I don't think it can be said with certainty that this action of the nine summoning +Lefebvre to court is uncanonical and therefore worthy of excommunication. And, I am not a supporter of the nine. I am only sympathetic to the sspv portion of them. Because, when this occurred(1981 I think), the sspx was not in a canonically regular situation, similar to today. Is that not correct? So, it is arguable that canon law would not apply, no matter how well or how much we hold ourselves to it. Because, if the sspx is not canonically regular, then a superior(+Lefebvre in this case) does not have canonical authority. And, it is canonical authority when taken to civil court that is excommunicable. No matter how important it is to follow previous canon law, or how well it is followed, the pope is the ultimate authority in the church no matter how heretical he is. And, well, things have changed.For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?
For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?Would you mind linking for me the canon law text regarding this? I would like to see it.
* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...
For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?As of 1984, +ABL was only "suspended", not "excommunicated". He wasn't supposedly "excommunicated" until 1988.
* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...
As of 1984, +ABL was only "suspended", not "excommunicated". He wasn't supposedly "excommunicated" until 1988.Wasn't 1976 a big date for +Lefebvre and the sspx? I think it had something to do with and/or involved ordinations. From memory it seems that the sspx had you could say "concrete" issues well before 1984.
Would you mind linking for me the canon law text regarding this? I would like to see it.I hoped to find the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English translation on Archive, but it's not there.
And, if it is as simple as not being allowed to take a catholic bishop to court(no matter the status), as long as said bishop is not excommunicated, which +Lefebvre was not at the time in 1981. Then, all one would have to argue is that there is new canon law,and the old does not apply. However, when that is argued by sedevacantists/the nine, who I think still try to operate by the old canon law, then it becomes really a pathetic poor argument. But, they are in error anyways, who cares. However, we should not be in error about how to apply ecclesiastical penalties. And, to say they are officially excommunicated, is just not safe. We do not have the argument nor the authority.
For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?What does it say about laity who bring a suit against a priest or a diocese?
* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...
For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?If a SSPX priest opted to go Resistance and decided to bring a civil suit against Bishop Fellay, would he be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...
So... I feel as if I have to say something here...Here is their side of the story regarding the lawsuit as well:
I know one of the nine, Fr. Joseph Collins, personally. In fact, he is the priest officiating my wedding this summer. The split of the nine was originnally caused over valid liturgical questions which they presented to Archbishop Lefebvre, hoping he would resolve them. The nine truly hoped that the Archbishop would hear their petitions, yet this was not to happen, and now we have seen how the SSPX has gotten closer and closer to giving up resistance to the Vatican II Church, and hence the reason Bishop Williamson was also expelled when he tried to stand up for truth.
Their letter is quoted at an SSPX site:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48&catname=12
As an after note, I would like to put out there that Archbishp Lefebvre had no normal jurisdiction to bind anyone and he himself rejected the authority of those whom he claimed as his superiors by their being popes. Just a thought anyhow...
I wasn't implying there is anything wrong with the other SSPX lines, but considering their posturing with Rome, it's best to stand with the Lion of Wimbledon and his subsequent line of Bishops.
Wrong analysis.
The safest bet of line of valid episcopacy is the Bishop Williamson line
I have no qualms with the Thuc-line. Des Lauriers was the confessor of Pope Pius XII and actually helped pen the Dogma of the Assumption of the BVM, as well as the Ottaviani Intervention. The most knit-picking and extreme group out there has said that there is no positive doubt in the matter. I admire Father Jenkins, but he truly makes no case for positive doubt of the Thuc lline. I've heard Fr. Jenkins call into question every single bishop except for the Lefebvre and Mendez line. He has even stated in one of his videos that the Eastern Orthodox episcopal lineage is dubious!!! The Church has never said such. He literally has a video about the finding of the child Jesus in the temple that is amazing except that he interrupts it for a few seconds to take a jab at Thuc line bishops saying that if they will justify the Thuc consecration that they will justify anything as if it were the worst evil to ever take place on the face of the earth. I've got to say that I admire the SSPV's wisdom in all areas except the Thuc line. It seems as if it is more personal than based on solid principle. I mean, if it was that serious to them, why not attempt to unite Traditional Catholics by offering to conditionally consecrate their bishops and clergy with their esteemed Mendez-line? Would one be correct in assuming they lack the charity to do so??
For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop. That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al) who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?
* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...
If a SSPX priest opted to go Resistance and decided to bring a civil suit against Bishop Fellay, would he be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?Short answer, no. Longer answer, the sspx is still not canonically regular. And, I am under the impression that this statute is not in the new canon law, and only in the old. So, no excommunication for a lawsuit.
What's ironic is that EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT that the SSPV has used against the validity of the Thuc line applies EVEN MORE to the Mendez consecration of +Kelly.Garbage. You do not know their arguments.
It is interesting(but not surprising) how the so called "sede doubtist" ladislaus sides with the sede extremists/dogmatic vacantists against the sspv. The bottom line in my book is that the sspv cspv have a legitimate argument. Time will tell whether it is valid or not. I however prefer to enjoy it as a desert, rather than a main course. But, that is the difference between me and them. They have doubts about the papacy, I do not. I would avoid the cmri on the grounds of their invalidating all orders but their own. I would avoid them for their dogmatic vacantism.
Croix - I am not going to scan over all canon law in order to find this. However, just trust me on this one. The nine have not been excommunicated by this. They have however been compromised by this, and thoroughly humiliated by +Williamson for this.
Garbage. You do not know their arguments.
Garbage. You do not know their arguments.
I would avoid the cmri on the grounds of their invalidating all orders but their own. I would avoid them for their dogmatic vacantism.
Ladislaus - I am not referring to the arguments of the extremist factions of the nine. I am saying that you do not know the arguments of the sspv cspv.
This particular point of discussion has absolutely nothing to do with their theological position on the crisis. We're talking about questions of sacramental validity and about the licitness of taking a bishop to court. Doesn't matter if you're R&R, sedevacantist, or "sededoubtist".It most certainly does matter to the rabid anti-sedevacantists.....they are completely blinded by it.
Ridiculous. I personally knew several members of the Nine, and in particular then-Father Sanborn, when all this was shaking out.I posted the law. It talks about getting permission from the pope or the ordinary. Exactly how would that work when the bishop in question (ABL) didn't even obey his pope and didn't report to his Ordinary?
If a SSPX priest opted to go Resistance and decided to bring a civil suit against Bishop Fellay, would he be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?If the Old Code of Canon Law remains in force, then it seems he would be excommunicated. I don't see how the new "Code of Canon Law 1983" (and is there a subsequent one?) can be valid since it's written by heretics with no true interest in preserving Catholic justice and order, therefore, it can't truly be in effect. But that's only my opinion. Only God knows for certain.
I posted the law. It talks about getting permission from the pope or the ordinary. Exactly how would that work when the bishop in question (ABL) didn't even obey his pope and didn't report to his Ordinary?
Croix de Fer: Very well stated. If there be no pope, then there is no authority.
This has already been discussed. There's no exception made for a suspended bishop or a bishop without jurisdiction. Was +ABL a Catholic bishop? If so, and if the Old Code of Canon Law remains in force, then I don't see how they were not excommunicated. Basically, this is the age old battle where the Church asserts that SHE has authority over her clergy rather than secular authorities.Did ABL even assert that they were excommunicated for their actions? Did he warn them that they would be if they continued the course? If not, why not? If not, doesn't that imply that he did not believe that their actions excommunicated them?
Did ABL even assert that they were excommunicated for their actions? Did he warn them that they would be if they continued the course? If not, why not? If not, doesn't that imply that he did not believe that their actions excommunicated them?Because he's not fr. Pfeiffer? ;D
Because he's not fr. Pfeiffer? ;DAnd yet there are quite a few lay persons on this forum who seem to have no qualms about making that judgment.
Seriously, I would think ABL would reserve that judgement for the pope or God.
And yet there are quite a few lay persons on this forum who seem to have no qualms about making that judgment.fraternal corrections are supposed to be private.
I thought ABL was supposed to be the Nine's bishop. Shouldn't he then be concerned for the welfare of their souls? If he believed that their actions would excommunicate them from the Catholic Church, he should have warned them, but I don't think there is any record of this.
This is his Episcopal Coat of Arms:.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28468254_10155462102138691_19298636908720219_n.jpg?oh=47b225bc3b2b616f7e2874c307f3e9b0&oe=5B4AA0DF)
At least, from my perspective, they do not pretend to have any Jurisdiction since they sincerely believe there is no living Pope today to grant any.Don't they, also, believe that they have supplied jurisdiction in this Crisis?
Cantarella says:Keep in mind that without Archbishop Lefebvre, there would be no Bishop Selway or any of the previous consecrations and ordinations of traditional bishops and priests, respectively, before him; nor would there be a real Tridentine Latin Mass, today.
They are just doing as best as they can in these times of dismal crisis, in order to preserve the Sacraments and the true Liturgy. That is all. The same cannot be said about the Society of St. Pius X though, which recognizes Bergolio as true Pope in word, but acts as he practically did not exist, so they do not recognize him in practice.
Anyone who studies Canonical Law would know the legal implications of consecrations without papal approval.
The discussion of whether one is excommunicated for bringing a civil lawsuit against a cleric is mute with regard to the Nine since as Fr Cekada reports it was Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX who sued the Nine. The Nine did counter-sue but only as a legal tactic to defend against The SSPX lawsuit against them. I believe in that case it is acceptable from the point of view of canon law. And really besides a negotiated agreement the SSPX had no recourse in an ecclesiastical court due to the suspension. I don’t think either side would fall under ecclesiastical condemnation for that unfortunate episode. But the SSPX could have avoided the whole thing if they had agreed to negotiate at the outset but they had abad lawyer who misled them into thinking they could win easily.
Did you read Canon 120? I doubt it. You don't know what you are talking about.Nice filling and red herring fallacy, brah.
Privilegium Fori, of very ancient origin in the Church, has a certain remote sanction in Holy Scripture (1 Cor. 6:1).
In all contentious or criminal cases clerics are to be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge, unless lawful provision to the contrary has been made for particular places (c. 120, S 1).
[Fr Sanborn was a cleric. So +Lefebvre was obligated to bring him before an ecclesiastical court. Which court would that be Croix de Fer?]
Cardinals, Legates of the Holy See, Bishops even though merely titular, Abbots and Prelates nullius, the highest superiors of religious societies of pontifical law, and the major officials of the Roman Curia in matters pertaining to their office, may not be summoned before a lay judge without permission of the Holy See; other clerics who have the privilege of the forum may not be so summoned without the permission of the Ordinary of the place where the case is in progress; the Ordinary however, shall not refuse such permission without a just and grave reason, especially if the plaintiff is a layman, and more especially after he shall have tried in vain to effect a compromise between the parties (c. 120, S 2).
[+Lefebvre was not a sede at the time so presumably he should have sought permission of the Ordinary to file the lawsuit against Fr Sanborn et al. But he did not for obvious reasons. But from the forgoing, it is clear that in normal circuмstances the permission would have been given and how much more would the Holy See (if it existed) be obligated to permit Fr Sanborn to defend himself! Idiot!]
Clemens Mangina says:Firstly, you need to prove I am wrong, which is a task you have, hitherto, failed.
you should just shut your mouth about stuff you know nothing about.
Doubling down on your stupidity?(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29133028_171682790309139_2217668984189222912_n.jpg?oh=0114b644a2029b226d2c6926df8cd8d5&oe=5B492467)