Author Topic: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction (Read 4536 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2023, 12:34:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 16, 2023, 09:17:37 AM

You focus exclusively on one aspect of the Church's constitution vis-a-vis indefectibility, but completely ignore the other aspect.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
This is the battle between SV and R&R in a nutshell (as per the bolded summary sentence above). Which of these aspects of indefectibility are most difficult to salvage? To me the answer is clear. It's easier to uphold the temporary interruption of a normally-functioning hierarchy than to explain the corruption of the Church's doctrine, moral standards, or Sacraments by an allegedly legitimate hierarchy.

If the Church's hierarchy can promote corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, corrupt moral standards (as with Bergoglio in particular), then what's the point of having a hierarchy? None. We'd be better off without it, since they only serve to corrupt the faithful.

Your post #13 and #11 are infected with the same error, which is a common tactic of yours. When confronted with an argument that your senses tell you seems to be your usual prey - i.e., R & R of the Resistance or SSPX variety, or anyone who holds to the typical R & R line - it triggers your R & R hunting attack instinct, and you pounce. Well, you're pouncing on an R & R straw man here, and not likely to get much nourishment for your R & R diet.

I'm an individual with individual views and don't cotter to any party line, so if you're going to engage in a real, serious discussion with me - and I hope you do, that is the purpose of this - I ask that you engage me and my positions, and not some past R & R victim you pounced on. I know your actions noted above are your defense mechanism for dealing with any direct confrontation to your cherished illusions that presents a real challenge to them, but let's see if you can dispense with it and if we can have a real dialogue, based on my position - not some R & R straw man's - and yours.

I'm not "focusing" exclusively on the apostolic "hierarchy" aspect of indefectibility, but bringing it up because you totally ignore in it your Quixotic tilting against R & R and its denial of your idea of indefectibility - which often entertains us with your rants about loss of Catholic faith, heresy, and back flips of orthodox outrage. You should memorize the verses about the beam puller with the mote in the eye, and meditate on them daily. Because you are blind to how your view totally betrays the Catholic doctrine of the Church's indefectibility by conveniently lopping off an essential element of the doctrine: the Church's doctine of indefectibility requires an authoritative, living hierarchy to rule and govern the faithful with the authority of the Apostles they have succeeded.

I'll deal with your one post of some substance in another reply, but let me forever dispatch your R & R straw by repeating what I quoted (with highlights for emphasis) from the CE:

Quote

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Unlike you, I know what "either" means: if the Church were to lose the power of preaching the true faith or delivering grace via the sacraments or lose a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction, it will have defected. Either.

I'm not the one who is "focusing" on his little shrub of doctrinal or sacramental indefectibility and forgetting about the forest with its hierarchical component to suit my theory: you are.

DR

DecemRationis · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2023, 01:16:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 16, 2023, 08:21:37 AM

What do even "laws" and "binding" discipline even mean to you people? What's the point of having an authority that can bind and promulgate Sacramental norms/rites, etc. when there's no obligation to submit to these laws and disciplines and to accept their Sacramental norms?

You effectively say that there is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY because people are free to accept or reject it. That means they're not authorities at all.

So by your own criteria, the NO has defected, because they have no authority.

What does teaching "authority" mean to you people? What does disciplinary "authority" mean? It means nothing when you claim that Catholics are free to take it or leave it.

You describe teaching authority as binding when it conforms to Tradition but not binding when it doesn't? So that gives the Church's "teaching authority" and Magisterium no more AUTHORITY to bind than if, say, Ratzinger was writing some book. If Ratzinger write in the book that Gods is Three Persons in One God, then that's binding, but not by the weight of his authority, but by the weight of prior authority and truth. In other words, any given Ratzinger Encyclical has no more "authority" in your warped, twisted, non-Catholic view of things than his various books.

Yes, Our Lord established the hierarchy with AUTHORITY ... which R&R deny by redefining what "authority" means.

Well, on second reading, it appears you are engaging the R & R straw man here.

My point is, Sedevacantism, as espoused by you and Sedes, is no solution to the crisis. It says it maintains the Church's indefectibility, but if you look at the doctrine and what it entails - and I'm the only one who has offered any authority or commentary from theologians pre-V2 on the issue - namely, a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction as an essential attribute, you see that if fails on a different branch of the doctrine than R & R, but it fails nonetheless.

Sedevacantism is no solution to the "defect" problem. If not, why not? And let's have an argument with some authority, some cited theological support.

Then we can discuss what that means and explore real answers that may have at least a ring of genuine truth, you know, truth that survives the application of principles without contradiction, or at least offers a theory in line with Revelation to explain an anomaly that appears to stand the principles on their head - and deal with the "anomaly" of the NO hierarchy, and consider whether it has any authority, and if so what that is.

DR

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #17 on:** March 16, 2023, 01:56:00 PM »

DecemR,
"Straight Sedevacantism", you're right, offers no solution. But Fr Chazal's sede-impoundism, aka sede-privationism, means a heretic pope loses spiritual authority, while still retaining govt/human authority and temporal jurisdiction. Spiritual Jurisdiction, much like the "supplied" version in canon law, would be granted by Christ Himself, as the ultimate author of episcopal powers.

Do you agree with these alternate theories? I think they explain a lot, in theory, although in practice/reality, it solves nothing.

forlorn · « **Reply #18 on:** March 16, 2023, 02:16:06 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 04:49:52 PM

What Novus Ordo bishop does Fr. D, or any Sedevacantist, believe has legislative, judicial, coercive or administrative power over him (them) or any Catholic in their jurisdiction?

What R&R does? If you did, you'd be fasting according to the new laws, you'd be attending a Novus Ordo Mass rather than canonically irregular ones, you wouldn't be throwing your lot in with an excommunicated bishop, etc.

R&Rs may pretend they have a hierarchy and use it as a beating stick against Sedes, but in reality they don't. Even Bishop Williamson refers to NO as a "false religion", and of course he's made no attempt to reverse his excommunication, which he absolutely would if he respected the NO hierarchy as the true hierarchy of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 16, 2023, 03:17:29 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on March 16, 2023, 02:16:06 PM

What R&R does? If you did, you'd be fasting according to the new laws, you'd be attending a Novus Ordo Mass rather than canonically irregular ones, you wouldn't be throwing your lot in with an excommunicated bishop, etc.

Yep, they claim there must be an "authority" but an authority that's really a non-authority. Some guy who carries a ring around that you can ignore is of essence to the indefectibility of the Church. It's so ludicrous that it's mind-boggling. It's a garbage question anyway. Not all Catholics have to be under the ordinary jurisdiction of someone at any given time. During the Arian crisis, estimates hold that anywhere from 97-99% of all episcopal sees were taken over by Arians. So all those Catholics were outside the Church because they didn't have a Catholic bishop to be subject to?

I as a privationist hold that there are in fact some bishops remaining who have ordinary jurisdiction, in particular among the Eastern Rites. So the question is irrelevant to my position in the first place, and the straight sedevacantists have adduced convincing evidence that having no such bishops with ordinary jurisdiction at any given time is within the realm of possibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 16, 2023, 03:22:51 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 16, 2023, 01:56:00 PM

DecemR,
"Straight Sedevacantism", you're right, offers no solution. But Fr Chazal's sede-impoundism, aka sede-privationism, means a heretic pope loses spiritual authority, while still retaining govt/human authority and temporal jurisdiction. Spiritual Jurisdiction, much like the "supplied" version in canon law, would be granted by Christ Himself, as the ultimate author of episcopal powers.

Do you agree with these alternate theories? I think they explain a lot, in theory, although in practice/reality, it solves nothing.

Well, in practice, no position "solves" anything ... unless you believe that everything is just fine with the Conciliar Church (which means no one here on CI). But the criticisms here do not pertain to impoundism or privationism at all. And various sedevacantists have cited theologians who hold that ordinary jurisdiction could pass to the Church even through an antipope via color of title. During an extended vacancy, there's a non-ordinary jurisdiction state also.

These arguments are overly simplistic and are simply confirmation of a pre-existing bias against sedevacantism.

Yes, a hierarchy is of essence to the constitution of the Church. But so is a body of essence to a human being. But those souls who have been in heaven with their bodies still remain essentially human even if temporarily deprived of their bodies. Saying that a hierarchy of is essence to the Church is not to prove that at any given moment of time there couldn't be a lack of an ACTUAL hierarchy.

In this kind of a scenario, what remains of the Church could designate or elect a Pope. God / Christ would then transmit the jurisdiction to that elected Pope, and then ordinary jurisdiction would resume, even if it's been temporarily suspended. Recall that the Pope receives jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and so long as there are valid bishops left who could confer episcopal orders, any kind of designation / election that remains would suffice for Christ to respect it and to supply that jurisdiction. St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the hypothetical where all the Cardinals were killed. Cardinals are not of divine institution. Bishops, including the bishop of Rome, were often chosen by the laity and clergy of their respective cities in the early Church. It wasn't that the faithful / clergy gave these bishops power, but they could and did designate the recipient of the authority, i.e. elect the individual.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2023, 05:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 16, 2023, 03:22:51 PM

Yes, a hierarchy is of essence to the constitution of the Church. But so is a body of essence to a human being. But those souls who have been in heaven with their bodies still remain essentially human even if temporarily deprived of their bodies. Saying that a hierarchy of is essence to the Church is not to prove that at any given moment of time there couldn't be a lack of an ACTUAL hierarchy.

Ask yourself if a human being can exist without its body (it's essence, according to you). The answer is yes, and the Church tells us as much, as it has been defined that human beings divorced from their bodies still exist and are in heaven - Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus.

Show us the Church saying that the indefectibility of the Church continues if it loses a hierarchy having the power of jurisdiction.

To the contrary: I gave you quotes as to how the indefectibility of the Church is lost if it loses the hierarchy, and then gave you the CE's definition of hierarchy, of which the power of jurisdiction is of the essence. I gave you two theological authorities indicating that a "governing body" or hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction is necessary for the Church's indefectibilty, which is lost if it loses "either."

If you have a serious argument to make with some serious theological support, I would love to consider it.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2023, 07:01:58 AM »

Hope to return to this again later.

Meanwhile, from one of the rejected preparatory schema for Vatican II, "Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church" (a similar draft constitution for Vatican I was cited in the OP):

Quote

CHAPTER VII THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH

28. The Existence and Nature of an Authoritative Teaching Office

In order that the Church might religiously exercise its duty of faithfully preaching the message of the Gospel to all nations, her divine Founder made his beloved bride a most trustworthy teacher of his truth and through the Holy Spirit endowed her with the charism of indefectible truth.1 This is why the Church has always been aware and has insistently proclaimed that she is in the world the pillar and bulwark of the truth (see 1 Tm 3:15).2 The indefectibility of the authoritative teaching office was given to the Church so that the indefectibility God promised to the whole Church might be kept safe.

The Lord established the authoritative teaching office of the Church to be the proximate principle and perpetual organ of this indefectible truth, and to it he gave the task of preserving the integral deposit of faith, of faithfully explaining it, and of keeping it immune from all error.3 For to the Apostles and to their successors he promised a special gift of the Holy Spirit by which they would be the witnesses of evangelical truth to the very ends of the earth (see Acts 1:8); to them he gave the power to teach with authority, saying: "Going therefore teach all nations..., teaching them to observe whatever I have commanded you" (Mt 28:18-19); and to them, finally, he gave the assurance that the Spirit of truth (see Jn 14:16-17; 16:12-14) and his own presence would remain with them until the end of the world (see Mt 28:20), sby which they would be preserved from error in teaching the flock.4

Thus there exists in the Church a lasting and living teaching office to which is given the task of teaching with authority in Christ's name on matters of faith and morals.5 When a person listens to this teaching office, it is not men he hears teaching, but Christ, according to his own statement: "He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16);6 and it is by adhering to it that the people of the faithful is kept in evangelical truth. For Christ the Lord, always living in heaven as the Head of his Mystical Body, illumines the whole Church in all his members: the pastors so that they may teach the word of God; the faithful so that they may accept and rightly understand it; and both, so that they may witness to their faith--on all these Christ sends forth the promised Spirit of truth to keep them all from error and to lead them to acknowledge and profess the divine truth.7

. . .

Dogmatic-Constitution-on-the-Church.pdf (unamsanctamcatholicam.com)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2023, 07:21:21 AM »

From the Vatican II schema again, quoted in footnote 6 to the section, Chapter IV, Residential Bishops:

Quote

Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem fidei, #4-5 (Mansi 38, 1265; Dz1504-1505); CIC, can 335,1;
Vatican I, First Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, c. 10 (Mansi 51, 543):

"There are two types of power in the Church, power of orders and power of jurisdiction. With regard to the latter, we teach that it is not only power in the internal and sacramental forum, but also power in the external and public forum, power that is absolute and quite complete, that is, legislative, judicial, and coercive. The subject of this power are the shepherds and teachers given by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of all secular dominion. Therefore, with full authority they rule the Church of God by needed laws that oblige in conscience, by definitive judgements, and by salutary penalties for the guilty, even if they are unwilling; and they do this not only with regard to matters that concern faith and morals, worship and sanctification, but also with regard to matters concerning the external discipline and
administration of the Church."

Again, from the OP, the Vatican I First Draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

Quote

Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.

Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Yeti · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2023, 08:04:07 AM »

One of the Nigerian priests ordained by Bp. Dolan has written an article in which he argues that traditional Catholic clergy constitute the hierarchy of the Church today, and therefore there still is a hierarchy.

This claim is one that most people here will probably dismiss out of hand, but I find it pretty compelling.

The reasoning is simple. The Church must have a hierarchy. The hierarchy is Catholic bishops and normally a pope, but definitely it is composed of Catholic bishops. These bishops teach the Faith and sanctify the faithful.

Well, if you look at the world today, who are the people who are Catholic bishops who teach the Faith and sanctify the faithful? Obviously it's trad bishops. No one else meets that description.

The only really serious objection to this idea has to do with how jurisdiction is passed on. I think there are two possible answers. 1) Maybe trad bishops do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, but ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary to be a member of the hierarchy. Maybe supplied jurisdiction is sufficient to allow them to teach and sanctify. In any case, since everyone agrees that Novus Ordo bishops do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, then this argument results in denying the existence of any hierarchy at all, and must be considered faulty. 2) Maybe they do possess ordinary jurisdiction without being aware of it. Look at where they came from. They came from pre-Vatican 2 bishops (mainly Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Thuc) who possessed ordinary jurisdiction who ordained priests and consecrated bishops in an emergency situation in which they could not seek permission from the pope to do so, but did this to continue the work of the Church and the perpetuation of the priesthood and episcopacy. Maybe they did have the power to pass on the ordinary jurisdiction that they themselves possessed because such was necessary for the continuance of the Church and because of the universal catastrophe of Vatican 2. Lots of things become legitimate in an end-of-the-world scenario that otherwise are not, such as if there was a nuclear war that wiped out every Catholic bishop, it would be licit to seek episcopal consecration from a schismatic bishop if such were remaining in order to continue the Church, which otherwise would never be permissible. In a spiritual sense, that's somewhat analogous to the situation after Vatican 2.

2Vermont · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2023, 08:08:52 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on April 12, 2023, 08:04:07 AM

One of the Nigerian priests ordained by Bp. Dolan has written an article in which he argues that traditional Catholic clergy constitute the hierarchy of the Church today, and therefore there still is a hierarchy.

This is claim is one that most people here will probably dismiss out of hand, but I find it pretty compelling.

The reasoning is simple. The Church must have a hierarchy. The hierarchy is Catholic bishops and normally a pope, but definitely it is composed of Catholic bishops. These bishops teach the Faith and sanctify the faithful.

Well, if you look at the world today, who are the people who are Catholic bishops who teach the Faith and sanctify the faithful? Obviously it's trad bishops. No one else meets that description.

The only really serious objection to this idea has to do with how jurisdiction is passed on. I think there are two possible answers. 1) Maybe trad bishops do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, but ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary to be a member of the hierarchy. Maybe supplied jurisdiction is sufficient to allow them to teach and sanctify. In any case, since everyone agrees that Novus Ordo bishops do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, then this argument results in denying the existence of any hierarchy at all, and must be considered faulty. 2) Maybe they do possess ordinary jurisdiction without being aware of it. Look at where they came from. They came from pre-Vatican 2 bishops (mainly Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. Thuc) who possessed ordinary jurisdiction who ordained priests and consecrated bishops in an emergency situation in which they could not seek permission from the pope to do so, but did this to continue the work of the Church and the perpetuation of the priesthood and episcopacy. Maybe they did have the power to pass on the ordinary jurisdiction that they themselves possessed because such was necessary for the continuance of the Church and because of the universal catastrophe of Vatican 2. Lots of things become legitimate in an end-of-the-world scenario that otherwise are not, such as if there was a nuclear war that wiped out every Catholic bishop, it would be licit to seek episcopal consecration from a schismatic bishop if such were remaining in order to continue the Church, which otherwise would never be permissible. In a spiritual sense, that's somewhat analogous to the situation after Vatican 2.

Just want to point out that Archbishop Thuc did have papal approval to consecrate bishops which was never rescinded:

ARCHBISHOP THUC (vpweb.com)

PS. Thanks for the link you provided. I don't think I've seen that before. ETA: I had seen it before, but I have not read it in its entirety yet.

Yeti · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2023, 08:27:21 AM »

The article is long and covers different things, but this section covers his position on trad clergy today:

Quote

E. ... or [to the] Catholic Hierarchy, which
is necessarily perennial.
A Hierarchy is a sacred leadership, both
because the office itself has been determined positively
by God, and because the subject exercising it is
designated positively by God. 53
The Catholic Hierarchy, composed of bishops,
necessarily will be perennial. For the hierarchy in the
Church to be perennial, two things are required:
i. That the hierarchical office itself be perennial,
that is, that the threefold power of teaching,
sanctifying and governing, instituted by Christ,
be perennial in the Church.
ii. That the hierarchical way of constituting the
subject of the office be perennial, that is, the
subject of the office is established by divine
right, not by the community of the faithful nor
by the secular power, but by God or at least
by other bishops. 54
Now, to ensure that the Divine Mission of Christ to his
Church continues till the end of time, Christ committed
certain powers to the hierarchy necessary for this
mission.
The three powers committed to the hierarchy
are as follows:
- The power of ruling is the right of directing and
obligating members of a human society to work for
a common end.
- The power of teaching is the right of handing on,
so that those to whom it is given are required to
embrace it.
- The power of sanctifying is the right of dedicating
to God or uniting with God other people by means
of some religious right. 55
These powers were given by Christ to His Apostles and
their successors to continue His Divine Mission, for
which reason this hierarchy is therefore called by
canonists a Sacred Hierarchy.
Second Part: ... to which belong all traditional
Catholic bishops.
Proof
Major: The Catholic Hierarchy, composed of bishops,
must necessarily be perennial, exercising the powers of

the Church in continuation of the mission of Christ.
Minor: But traditional Catholic bishops, alone today,
continue the mission of Christ by exercising the powers
of the Church, albeit incompletely.
Conclusion: Therefore, the traditional Catholic bishops
are the Catholic hierarchy and compose the Universal
Church.
Explanation of the Major:
This is de fide. The Catholic Hierarchy belongs to the
essential constitution of the Church, and by its very
nature, must be perennial.
Explanation of the Minor:
As demonstrated in the second conclusion, the
hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Sect is not the hierarchy
of the Catholic Church in any sense. Yet, it is certain
that traditional Catholic bishops receive the power of
sanctifying by reason of sacred ordination; 56 they
likewise receive the power of teaching, by reason of a
delegated and supplied jurisdiction, broadly so called,
from Christ through the Church for the continuation of
the Divine Mission of Christ committed by Him to his
Apostles and to their successors. With regard to the
power of ruling, traditional Catholic bishops are no
more than titular bishops, being without assignment to
any dioceses in the Church. However, since the power
of ruling (which is the power of jurisdiction strictly
speaking) is conferred by Christ but through the Pope,
57 traditional Catholic bishops are rightly said to be
ordered potentially, truly and properly so, to the
reception of Ordinary Jurisdiction, since they are
more apt to receive it whenever there is a pope. For the
pope receives supreme jurisdiction immediately from
Christ and communicates to the bishops.
It is impossible to concede, as some do, that
traditional Catholic bishops only exercise the power of
sanctification, since the power of teaching, at least,
precedes the power of sanctification in the order of
nature. (See Appendix 5 for more explanation. The
proof of this is taken from the specific distinction of the
powers among themselves.)
From the aforesaid, it follows that, in the
absence of cardinal electors who ordinarily enjoy the
right of electing the Roman Pontiff, traditional Catholic

bishops, on account of their being subjects of the sacred
hierarchy and in accordance with the principle of
devolution of rights, enjoy the right or faculty of
electing the Roman Pontiff.
Corollary: Despite the absence of bishops with
ordinary jurisdiction in the Church today, the
Apostolicity of the Church is still preserved till this day.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Apostolicity
is continued till this day, since Apostolicity
fundamentally is the perennial identity in the Church
of the mission, which Christ gave the Apostles when
he instituted the Church.58
Apostolicity of Origin, which is the essential
identity, not only specific but also individual of the
constitution of the contemporary Church with that
which took its beginning with the Apostles and from
the Apostles, continues till this day.
Apostolicity of doctrine, which is the
objective and individual identity of the doctrine of the
contemporary Church with the deposit of doctrine
received from the Apostles and handed on, continues
till this day.
Apostolicity of succession, which is the
juridical identity of the power of teaching, sanctifying
and ruling of the contemporary Church with the
ordinary power of the Apostles handed on by a
legitimate succession, continues and is preserved by
traditional Catholic Clergy because in them, material
succession is preserved and this succession is not
illegitimate. 59
It should be noted however that the hierarchy
with regard to the office e.g. the Apostolic See, is said
to remain even when there is no subject wielding the
authority of the office because power or authority is
understood to be a fount of faculties, rights and
obligations 60 which depends in this case on the will of
Christ rather than on the subjects possessing the office.
If the office depended on the subject possessing it, with
regard to its very existence and not its exercise, which
would be opposed to Catholic doctrine, the papacy
would rightly be said to have ended after the death of
St Peter.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2023, 08:55:17 AM »

The whole fallacious "argument" falls at the fact that the hierarchy is the system of authority while the hierarchs are men who occupy those positions.

The hierarchy is completely intact, it's the same as always, it's just that the hierarchs are missing.

Also, when Christ founded the Church it consisted of just a few people and it was still visible and hierarchical even though they didn't even have any buildings or any recognition.

Once you stop conflating the hierarchy with the hierarchs you will see the whole issue evaporates.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2023, 08:58:06 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on April 12, 2023, 08:08:52 AM

Just want to point out that Archbishop Thuc did have papal approval to consecrate bishops which was never rescinded:

ARCHBISHOP THUC (vpweb.com)

PS. Thanks for the link you provided. I don't think I've seen that before. ETA: I had seen it before, but I have not read it in its entirety yet.

I've seen that but I was unable to find an explanation of how the dispensation to consecrate bishops whenever functions in the sources cited because I couldn't find them.

I found the fact that Archbishop Thuc could consecrate bishops with papal approval decades into the crisis a marvelous act of Providence and it just might be the way ordinary jurisdiction was preserved. Who knows.

Yeti · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2023, 09:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on April 12, 2023, 08:55:17 AM

The whole fallacious "argument" falls at the fact that the hierarchy is the system of authority while the hierarchs are men who occupy those positions.

The hierarchy is completely intact, it's the same as always, it's just that the hierarchs are missing.

Also, when Christ founded the Church it consisted of just a few people and it was still visible and hierarchical even though they didn't even have any buildings or any recognition.

Once you stop conflating the hierarchy with the hierarchs you will see the whole issue evaporates.

.

Yes, I have entertained this idea as well. While I think it can be argued, I think the descriptions of the hierarchy indicate that it will be perpetually teaching until the end of the world, so that doesn't match your argument here.

Welcome to the forum! I think you and I think quite a bit alike.

Author Topic: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction (Read 4536 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

DecemRationis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Pax Vobis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

forlorn

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Ladislaus

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Ladislaus

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

DecemRationis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

DecemRationis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

DecemRationis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Yeti

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

2Vermont

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Yeti

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction

Yeti

Re: Indefectibility requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisidisdiction