Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 04:49:52 PM
-
The indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc.
Cardinal Franzelin (papal theologian to Vatican I) and associates, who drafted the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church in preparation for Vatican I, like the schema Cardinal Ottaviani oversaw in preparation for Vatican II, said this about the indefectibility of the Church:
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. 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.
This adds the note of a "visible" hierarchy, which is capable of drawing and attracting men and lighting the way of the Gospel for men's salvation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that the indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy that has the powers of accurately teaching Gospel truth, sanctifying with grace, and authoritatively ruling on matters involving faith and morals for mankind:
Ordinarily, also, the teaching power (magisterium) is connected with the power of jurisdiction. It is possible, of course, to distinguish in the Church a threefold power: the potestas magisterii , or the right to teach in matters of faith and morals ; the potestas ministerii , or the right to administer the sacraments, and the potestas regiminis , or the power of jurisdiction . Christ, however, did not establish a special hierarchy for the "potestas magisterii", nor does the teaching power pertain to the power of order, as some have maintained, but rather to the power of jurisdiction.
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760
Elsewhere, the CE describes this as a twofold power, as all three of the above powers are including in the powers of order and jurisdcition:
It is usual to distinguish a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction, corresponding to the twofold means of sanctification, grace, which comes to us principally through the sacraments, and good works, which are the fruit of grace. The hierarchy of order exercises its power over the Real Body of Christ in the Eucharist; that of jurisdiction over His Mystical Body, the Church (Catech. Conc. Trid., pt. II, c. vii, n. 6). Christ did not give to all the faithful power to administer His sacraments, except in the case of baptism and matrimony, or to offer public worship. This was reserved to those who, having received the sacrament of order, belong to the hierarchy of order. He entrusted the guidance of the faithful along the paths of duty and in the practice of good works to a religious authority, and for this purpose He established a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Moreover, He established His Church as a visible, external, and perfect society ; hence He conferred on its hierarchy the right to legislate for the good of that society. For this double purpose, the sanctification of souls and the good or welfare of religious society, the hierarchy of jurisdiction is endowed with the following rights :
the right to frame and sanction laws which it considers useful or necessary, i.e. legislative power;
the right to judge how the faithful observe these laws i.e. judicial power;
the right to enforce obedience, and to punish disobedience to its laws i.e. coercive power;
the right to make all due provision for the proper celebration of worship, i.e. administrative power.
Furthermore, with the power of jurisdiction there should be connected the right to exercise the power of order. The acts of the power of order are, it is true, always valid (except in the sacrament of Penance, which requires in addition a power of jurisdiction ). However, in a well-ordered society like the Church, the right to exercise the power of order could never be a mere matter of choice. For its legitimate exercise the Church requires either jurisdiction, or at least permission, even of a general character.
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5760
The CE makes it clear that if "either" the power to sanctify by providing grace through the sacraments, or the presence of a true hierarchy with its proper powers, is lost, then the Church has defected:
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
On March 13th, Fr. Desposito posted this on Twitter:
There is a simple way to show that sedevacantist bishops are not members of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction). Sedevacantist bishops do indeed have supplied power to forgive sins. But does anyone recognize the power to enact laws in a sedevacantist bishop? Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'. Does your sedevacantist bishop enact laws in your church? Does your sedevacantist bishop have power over a particular territory? Does your sedevacantist bishop grant special indulgences? Does your sedevacantist bishop refers to his church as a cathedral? The answer to these questions is in the negative. If your sedevacantist bishop were in fact a member of the Catholic hierarchy (of jurisdiction), he would be able to demand obedience. His laws would bind in conscience. No sedevacantist bishop has such power.
Fr. Desposito is correct.
Fr. D holds to the Cassiacuм thesis, and he believes that the "Conciliar Church" hierarchy maintains the Church's ongoing, apostolic Catholic hierarchy. Really?
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?
If none, then the hierarchy is gone, no matter how upsetting that fact would be to Fr. Desposito or any other Sede.
If that is the case, the Church has defected, just as it does if it teaches a false Gospel. A defect is a defect, a defection is a defection.
Our Lord came to establish the truth. I am Catholic in part because I seek Christ's Church, and it is the Catholic Church which has descended from the Apostles and which alone has the fullness of His Gospel truth. That truth is not served when we embrace positions subject to being exposed as false for convenience, emotional or psychological need, fear of having to adjust to a changed reality, etc.
As John Daly said in a talk once, if one has cancer, one wants to be told one has cancer, not that one is fine. We need the truth, and our Catholic faith distinguishes itself by its dedicated pursuit of it, and its being committed to it.
This crisis has been prophesied, and foretold in Scripture - that a time would come when, as Cardinal Manning accurately noted, the forces of darkness would prevail for a brief period. The darkness of that period does not cancel out or give the lie to the light of Catholic truth that shone prior, or the hierarchy that truly proclaimed it.
-
Fr. D holds to the Cassiacuм thesis, and he believes that the "Conciliar Church" hierarchy maintains the Church's ongoing, apostolic Catholic hierarchy. Really?
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?
If none, then the hierarchy is gone, no matter how upsetting that fact would be to Fr. Desposito or any other Sede.
If that is the case, the Church has defected, just as it does if it teaches a false Gospel. A defect is a defect, a defection is a defection.
.
This question and these ideas have received an increasing amount of attention in the sede world in the last couple of years, I'm not quite sure why. The more it's discussed, the more I incline to the idea that sede bishops and priests are the true hierarchy of the Church. That is the position that seems to have the least amount of problems; there is no angle on this that is without problems.
You are correct; by Fr. Desposito's criteria, one would have to conclude that the hierarchy no longer exists. But this is impossible.
If we are to read works like the one quoted by Cardinal Franzelin, he talks about the hierarchy being Catholic bishops who preach the Faith and rule the Church. (Ordinarily it includes a pope too, but we all agree that's not happening at the moment.) Well, who is doing that? Trad bishops, and no one else.
I think this is convincing. As far as the objections against it, Fr. Desposito says authority means having the power to enact law. Trad bishops certainly enforce Church laws on souls, as do trad priests. They require Catholics to believe in Catholic doctrine and practice the Faith, and even observe Church laws such as the six precepts of the Church.
The objection that they are unable to enact law seems a little weak, especially given that there is no other competing group of Catholic bishops who could be entertained as the hierarchy. Maybe this objection could be answered by saying trad bishops do in fact have the power to enact law, but incorrectly believe they don't. Or maybe they choose not to enact laws, despite having the power to do so, because they believe (and reasonably so) that it would be imprudent to claim jurisdiction in that sense over the faithful, but that doesn't in itself prove they don't have the power to do so.
Or maybe the simple power of enforcing already-existing legislation, such as the six precepts of the Church, is in itself sufficient to prove they have jurisdiction, even if they don't have the power to enact new laws.
We live in strange times, but it seems obvious to me that the Catholic Church is the group of people loosely referred to as traditional Catholics today.
-
.
This question and these ideas have received an increasing amount of attention in the sede world in the last couple of years, I'm not quite sure why. The more it's discussed, the more I incline to the idea that sede bishops and priests are the true hierarchy of the Church. That is the position that seems to have the least amount of problems; there is no angle on this that is without problems.
You are correct; by Fr. Desposito's criteria, one would have to conclude that the hierarchy no longer exists. But this is impossible.
If we are to read works like the one quoted by Cardinal Franzelin, he talks about the hierarchy being Catholic bishops who preach the Faith and rule the Church. (Ordinarily it includes a pope too, but we all agree that's not happening at the moment.) Well, who is doing that? Trad bishops, and no one else.
I think this is convincing. As far as the objections against it, Fr. Desposito says authority means having the power to enact law. Trad bishops certainly enforce Church laws on souls, as do trad priests. They require Catholics to believe in Catholic doctrine and practice the Faith, and even observe Church laws such as the six precepts of the Church.
The objection that they are unable to enact law seems a little weak, especially given that there is no other competing group of Catholic bishops who could be entertained as the hierarchy. Maybe this objection could be answered by saying trad bishops do in fact have the power to enact law, but incorrectly believe they don't. Or maybe they choose not to enact laws, despite having the power to do so, because they believe (and reasonably so) that it would be imprudent to claim jurisdiction in that sense over the faithful, but that doesn't in itself prove they don't have the power to do so.
We live in strange times, but it seems obvious to me that the Catholic Church is the group of people loosely referred to as traditional Catholics today.
👍
-
Fr. Desposito wrote:
Authority is defined as 'the ability to pass a law'.
Defined by whom? Where? I thought the definition of authority was the power to punish those who disobey the law. And certainly there are people in every society who have the power to punish those who break the law without being able to change the law or make new laws. The police have authority, which means they can write tickets, for example, against people who break the law, but they don't have the power to make laws.
-
Fr. Desposito wrote:
Defined by whom? Where? I thought the definition of authority was the power to punish those who disobey the law. And certainly there are people in every society who have the power to punish those who break the law without being able to change the law or make new laws. The police have authority, which means they can write tickets, for example, against people who break the law, but they don't have the power to make laws.
Well, what authority have you consulted? Jurisdiction is the real issue. Fr. D is using a synonym for jurisdiction in ecclessiological terms, which includes the legislative power, as indicated in the CE.
But forget the CE. Do you have any theological manuals? I think Pope Leo talks about this is Satis Cognitum, and Pius XII maybe in Mystici Corporis. Consult some authority on the issue.
-
"Indefectibility" has never been adequately defined, in my opinion. When you read theologians, they only describe it generally, not with a lot with a specifics.
-
.
This question and these ideas have received an increasing amount of attention in the sede world in the last couple of years, I'm not quite sure why. The more it's discussed, the more I incline to the idea that sede bishops and priests are the true hierarchy of the Church. That is the position that seems to have the least amount of problems; there is no angle on this that is without problems.
You are correct; by Fr. Desposito's criteria, one would have to conclude that the hierarchy no longer exists. But this is impossible.
If we are to read works like the one quoted by Cardinal Franzelin, he talks about the hierarchy being Catholic bishops who preach the Faith and rule the Church. (Ordinarily it includes a pope too, but we all agree that's not happening at the moment.) Well, who is doing that? Trad bishops, and no one else.
I think this is convincing. As far as the objections against it, Fr. Desposito says authority means having the power to enact law. Trad bishops certainly enforce Church laws on souls, as do trad priests. They require Catholics to believe in Catholic doctrine and practice the Faith, and even observe Church laws such as the six precepts of the Church.
The objection that they are unable to enact law seems a little weak, especially given that there is no other competing group of Catholic bishops who could be entertained as the hierarchy. Maybe this objection could be answered by saying trad bishops do in fact have the power to enact law, but incorrectly believe they don't. Or maybe they choose not to enact laws, despite having the power to do so, because they believe (and reasonably so) that it would be imprudent to claim jurisdiction in that sense over the faithful, but that doesn't in itself prove they don't have the power to do so.
Or maybe the simple power of enforcing already-existing legislation, such as the six precepts of the Church, is in itself sufficient to prove they have jurisdiction, even if they don't have the power to enact new laws.
We live in strange times, but it seems obvious to me that the Catholic Church is the group of people loosely referred to as traditional Catholics today.
Yeti,
Your subjection to a Trad bishop is purely voluntary. The authority they have over you is given by you to them. A Catholic in any region where they operate can say, "no," I'm going to Bishop X down the road, or I prefer SSPV, or SSPX, or CMRI, or some independent chapel and priest. The rejected bishop has no power and authority which says, "here is the Church, and I am the local authority."
You chose to be subject to whomever you are subject to. That's not power of jurisdiction over you, whether you like it or not.
-
"Indefectibility" has never been adequately defined, in my opinion. When you read theologians, they only describe it generally, not with a lot with a specifics.
At the moment Yeti and I are discussing the power of jurisdiction, Pax.
-
Yeti,
Your subjection to a Trad bishop is purely voluntary. The authority they have over you is given by you to them. A Catholic in any region where they operate can say, "no," I'm going to Bishop X down the road, or I prefer SSPV, or SSPX, or CMRI, or some independent chapel and priest. The rejected bishop has no power and authority which says, "here is the Church, and I am the local authority."
You chose to be subject to whomever you are subject to. That's not power of jurisdiction over you, whether you like it or not.
.
Before Vatican 2, someone could decide he didn't like his bishop either, and move to another diocese. That's not exactly the same thing we're talking about here, but it's not entirely different either.
Moreover, what traditional Catholic bishops command Catholics to do today is merely what the Church already requires -- to keep the six commandments of the Church, for example. If someone violates those laws, God will certainly punish them.
I agree that many Catholics can and do switch from one organization to another, sometimes on flimsy motives, but I'm not really sure what that proves. Given the universal state of chaos resulting from the crisis in the Church, it's really not clear who if anyone has jurisdiction over whom, so in any given case someone could say he can go to another chapel or whatever. And someone could easily argue that any given bishop doesn't have jurisdiction over him given the universal uncertainty. I'm not sure this proves there is no jurisdiction, though.
-
The indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc.
Yes, in this crisis the hierarchy as a whole are / have abused their authority, but what laws, liturgical and sacramental norms, disciplines etc. need to be made that are not already on the books for centuries in many instances?
-
What a wall of hogwash. Where to begin. :facepalm:
-
The indefectibility of the Church requires a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction or rule/governance, which means legislative, judicial, coercive, and administrative power - the power to make laws, mandate liturgical and sacramental norms and rules, make binding discipline, and the power to punish those who violate the laws, rules, etc.
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.
-
As a corollary, why is teaching and disciplinary authority essential to the Church? That's because God set this teaching and disciplinary authority up as a reliable guide to preserving intact the Deposit of Revelation. If this authority were capable of corrupting the faith and the Sacraments and the public worship of the Church, then thanks but no thanks. We'd be better off without such an authority.
As for the existence of ordinary jurisdiction at any given time in Church history, I, as more of a privationist, used to take issue with the sedevacantists on the "ecclesiavacantist" problem, but their citations from various theologians persuaded me that straight sedevacantism is quite tenable. Even if the V2 Popes are Antipopes, they serve as a conduit for jurisdiction through Color of Title, as Christ would transmit the jurisdiction through them. Also, during any given papal interregnum, the nature of jursidiction changes. It's no longer transmitted to the Church through the pope, but is supplied directly by Christ to the extent needed by the Church to continue in her mission of saving souls.
It's of the Church's essence to have a hierarchy, but it doesn't mean that the hierarchy has to be actually present at all times. Similarly, human beigns are essentially soul and body, and that does not change even when there's no body for a time. Some early Christians have been without their bodies for nearly 2,000 year now, and that doesn't make them any less human, nor does it detract from the fact human beings are essentially soul and body. So the essence of a human being doesn't change even if one component is lacking for a time.
-
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
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.
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.
-
What a wall of hogwash.
Well, I've read your responses, and the only hogwash in this thread has come from your "mouth."
-
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:
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 (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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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):
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) (https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Dogmatic-Constitution-on-the-Church.pdf)
(https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Dogmatic-Constitution-on-the-Church.pdf)
-
From the Vatican II schema again, quoted in footnote 6 to the section, Chapter IV, Residential Bishops:
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:
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.
-
One of the Nigerian priests ordained by Bp. Dolan has written an article (https://www.strcnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/A-Defense-of-the-Theological-Sedevacantist-Position.pdf) 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.
-
One of the Nigerian priests ordained by Bp. Dolan has written an article (https://www.strcnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/A-Defense-of-the-Theological-Sedevacantist-Position.pdf) 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)
(https://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC)
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.
-
The article is long and covers different things, but this section covers his position on trad clergy today:
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.
-
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.
-
Just want to point out that Archbishop Thuc did have papal approval to consecrate bishops which was never rescinded:
ARCHBISHOP THUC (vpweb.com)
(https://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC)
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.
-
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. :laugh1:
-
.
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. :laugh1:
Thanks. I hope we think alike :laugh1:
If fallible authors conflated the term hierarchy with hierarchs that's no problem for Catholicism, but I don't think they necessarily did.
As a sedevacantist I think you're quite aware that perpetual doesn't mean without interruption;) If perpetual successors can be interrupted so can perpetual teaching.
You're probably also familiar with the complete destruction of the "perpetual successors" objection: https://youtu.be/p2xYLg0M2LY
Jeremiah 33:17 “For this is what the LORD says: David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel."
And right after that there was no man on the throne for 500 years until Christ came. Those who entertain the perpetual successors objection might as well call God a liar.
I mean, the objection can be dismissed by simply stating the obvious that perpetual successors in the same primacy just means that all Popes have the same authority as Peter forever. It doesn't mean we can't go a year, two or sixty witout a Pope.
-
I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Those two "witnesses" claimed that archbishop Thuc didn't educated them to know anything about consecration of Catholic bishop. So they weren't actual witnesses, they don't know if it's valid or invalid.
If we have a pope like Pius IX. or Gregory XV., Pius XII. he would be warned, and if he would persist, he would be excommunicated like he was from Paul VI, aka Montini.
Some of the bishops and laymen defend archbishop Thuc because it's convenient from them to accept validity of his consecrations.
Just because of crisis and confusion, lack of true Catholic authority from pope and rest of hierarchy, it doesn't mean that everything goes.
I don't know what the true way is, but neither one of us really know, only God.
-
I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Those two "witnesses" claimed that archbishop Thuc didn't educated them to know anything about consecration of Catholic bishop. So they weren't actual witnesses, they don't know if it's valid or invalid.
If we have a pope like Pius IX. or Gregory XV., Pius XII. he would be warned, and if he would persist, he would be excommunicated like he was from Paul VI, aka Montini.
Some of the bishops and laymen defend archbishop Thuc because it's convenient from them to accept validity of his consecrations.
Just because of crisis and confusion, lack of true Catholic authority from pope and rest of hierarchy, it doesn't mean that everything goes.
I don't know what the true way is, but neither one of us really know, only God.
Pretty much nobody contests the validity of the Thuc line today and with good reason. There is no reason at all to believe his consecrations were invalid.
Some relevant proof: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60
You're pretty confident in stating he consecrated non-Catholics. Do you have any proof?
According to the available evidence Abp. Thuc was a holy man who made some imprudent decisions but would never consecrate non-Catholics or a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Very interesting testimonies of two witnesses of the persecution of Abp. Thuc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qqrMnzrED8
https://youtu.be/PQqs76r2d2o
-
I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Those two "witnesses" claimed that archbishop Thuc didn't educated them to know anything about consecration of Catholic bishop. So they weren't actual witnesses, they don't know if it's valid or invalid.
If we have a pope like Pius IX. or Gregory XV., Pius XII. he would be warned, and if he would persist, he would be excommunicated like he was from Paul VI, aka Montini.
Some of the bishops and laymen defend archbishop Thuc because it's convenient from them to accept validity of his consecrations.
Just because of crisis and confusion, lack of true Catholic authority from pope and rest of hierarchy, it doesn't mean that everything goes.
I don't know what the true way is, but neither one of us really know, only God.
So I see that you've bought into Bishop Kelly's nonsense, eh?
No, it's not "known fact" that he consecreated some non-Catholics, Old Catholics, and a French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Some shady individuals have emerged CLAIMING to have been consecreated by Archbishop Thuc but were unable to provide any evidence of it. And so what if he did? This would not impact the validity of his consecrations.
Church Law does not require witnesses to be "educated" about the Rite of Episcopal consecration, just like witnesses to a Baptism don't have to know about the requirements for the validity of a Baptism. In both cases, when you have a Bishop who is property trained, it's presumed that he can validly confer episcopal consecration. Archishop Thuc has multiple "doctorate" level degrees from Rome in Canon Law and Theology, and started/founded and taught at a seminary. In fact, the Church does not require witnesses at all, not to establish validity. Several clandestine bishops operated behind the Iron Curtain and were ordered to consecrate bishops without witnesses. When The Nine met with Bishop de Castro Mayer, seeking episcopal consecration, he directed them to +des Lauriers. When The Nine objected about the validity of the consecrations, +de Castro Mayer responded with, "If it's valid for +Guerard, it's valid for me." Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was arguably THE top pre-Vatican II theologian, having helped formulate Pius XII's declaration regarding the Dogma of the Assumption and was personal confessor to Pius XII for some time, and a top professor of theology in Rome. Between +Thuc and +des Lauriers, they knew the requirements for validity. +des Laurier spoke Latin fluently (taught classes in it). +Carmona was no slouch either, also having advanced degrees. There's no positive doubt whatsoever about the validity of the consecrations in terms of the Rite itself being properly confected.
Mario Derksen demolished Bishop Kelly here: http://www.thucbishops.com/ ... if you're interested in seeking the truth.
Finally, NOBODY defends the validity of the +Thuc line because "it's convenient from [sic] them to accept validity". That's nonsense and it's slanderous. They defend the validity based on Catholic principles. I invite you to read Derksen's study above.
-
I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Wait a second, so you also must consider all of the Novus Ordo consecrations and ordinations dubious at best since they are full of sodomites and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists?
Do you treat all Novus Ordo ordinations as invalid?
You definitely should because the form has been destroyed, I'm just pointing out an inconsistency if you consider NO sacraments to be valid.
-
Mario Derksen demolished Bishop Kelly here: http://www.thucbishops.com/ ... if you're interested in seeking the truth.
There's even a 5 page summary. http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf
-
There's even a 5 page summary. http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf
Thanks. I had forgotten about the summary.
-
I have read all that Derksen wrote on Thuc bishops.
It's not about SSPV, also Lefevbre and SSPX-MC, fr. Hewko and others were against Thuc consecrations. Did you ever saw a docuмent that confirms that consecration of fr. Des Lauriers?
Why this dubious ordinations and consecrations, (scandal with Palmarian sect) didn't happend with other traditional bishops?
I don't have any reason to defend SSPV, or CMRI, they both aren't present in my country.
I don't defend SSPX new leadership, I think bishop Fellay is going in wrong direction.
And SSPX is the only one that I can go to TLM.
Archbishop Thuc at Vatican II, here are some direct quotes:
“With great consolation I see present in these assemblies the delegates of the non-Catholic Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and liberty. But where are the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? Do they then not need this wondrous sight of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? What! do the people whom they represent not form a third part—or rather more truly the greater part— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter into one sheepfold? The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for men of white color and not for colored men.’” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)
“…it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall… Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations… I eagerly seek… these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions.” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)
I think what we all need to be cautious, we all read something on the Internet and chose what to believe and what not. I don't find arguments from Mario Derksen more or less convincing, but to impose absolute certainity of validity of all consecrations done by archbishop Thuc is to me unfathomable.
I'm writing what I think, I may be wrong so may you Marulus Fidelis, and Ladislaus.
We all are searching for answers, on wrong and/or right places.
It's sin a pride to think one has all the answers, like Dimond brothers.
I found pro et contra arguments for R & R and sedevacantism, I don't think I can accept either position fully as it is mostly presented.
We all know that there have been changes in rites of sacraments, but we don't know for sure if new sacrament of ordination or consecration is invalid. We only have our opinions and conclusions based on research of Church docuмents, theologians, etc.
It's up to Church in future, after the restoration to declare such things, and also about who is pope and who is antipope.
I believe that archbishop Lefevbre was right in this position.
I can't impose my opinion, but I have right to express it, like all other members.
Wait a second, so you also must consider all of the Novus Ordo consecrations and ordinations dubious at best since they are full of sodomites and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists?
Do you treat all Novus Ordo ordinations as invalid?
You definitely should because the form has been destroyed, I'm just pointing out an inconsistency if you consider NO sacraments to be valid.
-
The core error you are making is that you cannot conclude things from Catholic principles while the truth is that you must apply Catholic dogma and reach a definite conclusion.
Either a sacrament is valid or it is not.
A heretic can be Pope or he cannot.
A Pope can promulgate heresy in an ecuмenical council with his apostolic authority or he cannot.
Before you even start to evaluate whether Thuc consecrations are valid you have assumed that you can determine the truth of the matter. To point out that we are all fallible now that we started to present evidence seems like just a deflection.
Can we have moral certainty about the validity of sacraments or can we not?
If we can't be certain about Thuc's consecration what's stopping us from questioning Lefebvre's and everyone elses?
You must prove the consecration was invalid, otherwise it's valid. Where's the proof?
-
And I'd still like to know if you treat Novus Ordo consecrations as invalid since pretty much all the NO "bishops" support sodomy and other heresies.
I hope you realize that consecrations have nothing to do with whether the one performing them is a heretic, in that case the eastern schismatics wouldn't have valid orders.
-
This Church teaching and pre-Vatican II docuмents are aplied for situations like today in conciliar hierarchy. It's for consecration done with papal approval, with ordinary jurisdiction and full cannonical power.
We can't presume validity of consecrations done in basement, with only two witnesses that don't know nothing about the procedure to assure others that it was done validly. It's total different situation with different circuмstances.
I watched the debate on this topic, and read this open letter again.
Is it true that dr. Heller and dr. Hiller said that during consecration of fr. Des Lauries archbishop Thuc invoked the name of John Paul II, weeks after he stated publicly that he is a sedevacantist?
I heard that from fr. Jenkins. I don't agree with SSPV priests refusing to give Holy Communion to faithful who attend CMRI masses. I don't approve also SSPX priests refusing to give Holy Communion to faithful who are sedevacantists, or reguraly go to sedevacantist priest regardless of his status. They can preach and warn them, like bishop Sanborn likes to do against R & R, and una cuм position, but to interrogate faithful and withold Body and Blody of Christ just because he is not follower of theirs society is vary bad, even evil.
-
A heretic can be Pope or he cannot.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. "Per se" or "by its very nature" means that this applies to any Catholic, including the pope.
-
We can't presume validity of consecrations done in basement, with only two witnesses that don't know nothing about the procedure to assure others that it was done validly. It's total different situation with different circuмstances.
Actually you must presume validity and that's the whole point.
Also what you stated is completely untrue, Bp. Guerad des Lauriers is one of the most prominent theologians of the last century, he knows very well how a Bishop is consecrated and so does Abp. Thuc, a veritable genius who taught himself Spanish after the consecrations so he could teach Latin in Spanish. And we are to believe this man was demented? Ridiculous.
-
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. "Per se" or "by its very nature" means that this applies to any Catholic, including the pope.
Let's not derail this thread. It was just an example of a truth claim which is either true or untrue and you must know which.
I'm trying to point that one can't say the validity of Thuc's consecrations will be decided later by the Church.
-
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.
Who is the head of the Catholic Church supposed to be? Is it the Pope, or is Christ the head of the Church? The Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not the Mystical Body of the Pope.
-
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.
The hierarchy is the body of men vested with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, which they received from the Pope. The hierarchy is the most essential aspect of the mark of apostolicity. No hierarchy = no Church with four marks, and no Church with four marks means the gates of hell have prevailed.
-
The hierarchy is the body of men vested with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, which they received from the Pope. The hierarchy is the most essential aspect of the mark of apostolicity. No hierarchy = no Church with four marks, and no Church with four marks means the gates of hell have prevailed.
What church has all 4 marks? Surely not the Vatican II church.
-
Can we have moral certainty about the validity of sacraments or can we not?
If we can't be certain about Thuc's consecration what's stopping us from questioning Lefebvre's and everyone elses?
You must prove the consecration was invalid, otherwise it's valid. Where's the proof?
Can you prove the new rite of ordination or episcopal consecration is invalid? I've never seen any proof or even persuasive evidence for the invalidity of either, and I have been studying the issue for decades. Can you explain in your own words why you believe either of the two have been proven invalid?
-
The hierarchy is the body of men vested with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, which they received from the Pope. The hierarchy is the most essential aspect of the mark of apostolicity. No hierarchy = no Church with four marks, and no Church with four marks means the gates of hell have prevailed.
Actually the death-dealing tongues of heretics are the gates of Hell per the Council of Florence.
And the hierarchy is not the "body of men", those are the hierarchs.
And wrong again, the hierarchy is not the most essential aspect of apostolicity it is the apostolic faith.
Does the Vatican II sect have the apostolic faith?
-
Can you prove the new rite of ordination or episcopal consecration is invalid? I've never seen any proof or even persuasive evidence for the invalidity of either, and I have been studying the issue for decades. Can you explain in your own words why you believe either of the two have been proven invalid?
You're conflating two issues. If there is a positive doubt as to the form of the sacrament it must be treated as invalid, that's the case with NO consecrations and ordinations.
And yes, it is certain the ordination is invalid per Apostolicae Curae and consecration per Sacramentum Ordinis. If we didn't have those two docuмents we could call them doubtful and treat them as invalid but since we do have them we can be certain they are invalid.
On the other hand, when we know that the minister is using a valid rite we assume it's valid until proven otherwise.
Do you go to the altar to check each time whether the priest said HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM correctly?
P.S. If you're interested in seeing the proofs for yourself see: Absolutely Null and Utterly Void by Fr. Cekada which proves beyond any doubt the NO consecrations are invalid and the Dimond brothers have a couple of different ways of proving the ordination is invalid, the primary argument is from Apostolicae Curae, search their site for key terms.
-
What church has all 4 marks? Surely not the Vatican II church.
Since a hierarchy requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, and since bishop can only receive jurisdiction from the Pope, the only candidate for the Church with four marks is the universal Church based on Rome, which is one and the same institution that existed during the pontificate of Pius XII and the Pontificate of St. Peter. If that is what you mean by "the Vatican II church," then the Vatican II church is indeed still the Church with four marks. If it lacks the four marks, the only conclusion you can draw is that a Church with four marks no longer exists. And if that is the case, the Church founded by Christ - the one outside of which there is no salvation - no longer exists.
-
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.
Agreed. It is interesting that so many attack him/his consecrations.
-
Uggh. I think the new PaxVobis screen name should be changed. I keep thinking I'm speaking to the old Pax Vobis.
-
Agreed. It is interesting that so many attack him/his consecrations.
Archbishop Thuc is underrated, as the kids would say :D
-
You're conflating two issues. If there is a positive doubt as to the form of the sacrament it must be treated as invalid, that's the case with NO consecrations and ordinations.
And yes, it is certain the ordination is invalid per Apostolicae Curae and consecration per Sacramentum Ordinis. If we didn't have those two docuмents we could call them doubtful and treat them as invalid but since we do have them we can be certain they are invalid.
On the other hand, when we know that the minister is using a valid rite we assume it's valid until proven otherwise.
Do you go to the altar to check each time whether the priest said HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM correctly?
Nothing in Apostolic Curae proves or even suggests that the new rite of ordination is invalid, neither does anything in Sacramentum Ordinis. To simplify this, explain what is required for a valid form and then show why the form of the new rite or ordination and consecration doesn't meet the criterion.
-
Actually the death-dealing tongues of heretics are the gates of Hell per the Council of Florence.
And the hierarchy is not the "body of men", those are the hierarchs.
Just to clarify, are you saying the hierarchy consists of the offices (the episcopal sees) and the men who occupy them are the hierarchs? Is that the distinction that you are making?
And wrong again, the hierarchy is not the most essential aspect of apostolicity it is the apostolic faith.
That is exactly what the Protestant reformers said. The Catholics, such a Bellarmine, refuted them by explaining why the apostolic faith does not meet even the criterion for a mark. Apostolic succession and apostolicity of membership/origin are the essential aspects of the mark of apostolicity. Apostolic succession, which consists of the body of bishops who have been legitimately appointed to an episcopal see - one that was established by an Apostle or a subsequent Pope and which has remained in union with the Church of Rome - and the body of faithful subject to them; this unequal society of rulers and subjects, which is numerically one and the same moral body that has existed since the days of the Apostles, is the mark of apostolicity. And since this moral body of rulers and subjects is the indefectible Church that Christ founded and promised to be with "until the consummation of the world," it will always retain apostolicity of doctrine.
-
It seems to me that they also retain the power of orders since this is also linked indirectly to the power of jurisdiction, while directly only to the apostolic succession. The Church has always been very careful before affirming that a validly consecrated Bishop has lost the power of orders after becoming a heretic. Since Protestantism (1517), she still has not declared the sacraments of Lutheran bishops invalid; and only after 300 years did Leo XIII declare the Anglican orders to be invalid. Certainly the same criteria should be applied to the power of orders of the conciliar Popes: It is at the least very early to place in doubt the validity of the sacraments ministered by them.
I can't believe that so much effort some traditional catholics took to investigate and defend ordinations and consecrations of Thuc bishops. But just after one or two reading of the text of new rite of consecration or ordination, they are assured that it must be invalid.
It's not logical nor sincere. Okay, let's say that I presume validity of Thuc consecrations and all ordinations. Why it would be different than Novus ordo ordinations and consecrations?ć
Thare are changes in rites, but who can say 100 % it's not valid because of that?
God ask from all of us humility, in this confusion we can't believe ourselves or rely easily on others to make clear and correct conclusion. I may be wrong, I admit.
All we have are opinions, who can be erronious or correct.
Maybe if the prophecy of three days of darkness come true, and Peter and Paul come down from Hevean and designate a true pope (Angelic Pontiff), who will publish full text of Third Secret of Fatima, consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Immacate Heart, that would be only way I see it from sedevacantist point of view.
We can have one, two or more "false" popes, heretics and apostates, and what would remain from hierarchy if all priests, bishops and cardinals in Novus Ordo are invalid because of the new rites of sacrament?
Indeed, may it will happen just in that way. I know that with this divisions in traditional catholic circles, and sedevacantists, there wouldn't be one pope for all to agree on. That's why some claim that the last valid pope was Pius V., for others are Pius X. and mostly Pius XII. Bishop Sanborn hold theological novel position that pope can be material and not formal. It contradicts Church teaching from Vatican I council.
This opinions have the same level of authority, or lack of it.
It would really have to be something miraculous, impossible to deny to solve this crisis. Our Lady of Good Success said that the restoration of Catholic Church will begin after everything would seem to be lost. It would seem that Catholic Church has disappeared, Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross. With all those wounds, blood and shameful death on the Cross, He showed what His Church would have to go through. I believe in the coming of Age of Peace, Great Monarch, restoration of Christendom, and it would last maybe 40-50 years before coming of Antichrist.
Prophecies of Our Lady indicate this, and prophecies given to Marie Julie Jahenny, bl. Anne Katerina Emmerick also point to apostasy, false church, Vatican II, etc.
Church is indefectible, there are real, strong arguments for sedevacantism, but for me it's risky for salvation of souls. There will be more changes to Novus ordo mass, more heresies, maybe changes in rites of sacraments again.
I don't believe that Francis is the pope, this is way to much to swallow, even more than for Paul VI. and John Paul II.
Regardless, we need to pray for his conversion at least. So many Catholics are still duped by heretic popes, bishops, let's pray for them to discover and practise true, traditional Catholic faith.
Sorry for offtopic, I can't write short post, for some reason....
-
It seems to me that they also retain the power of orders since this is also linked indirectly to the power of jurisdiction, while directly only to the apostolic succession. The Church has always been very careful before affirming that a validly consecrated Bishop has lost the power of orders after becoming a heretic.
They do retain the power of orders. The indelible character that is conferred by ordination is permanent, just like the baptismal character. It remains for all eternity, even if the priest or bishop goes to hell.
-
Could you explain me how they can retain power of order if that Anglican or Lutheran order is invalid, null and void declared by pope Saint Leo XIII.?
They do retain the power of orders. The indelible character that is conferred by ordination is permanent, just like the baptismal character. It remains for all eternity, even if the priest or bishop goes to hell.
-
Actually the death-dealing tongues of heretics are the gates of Hell per the Council of Florence.
Where in the Council of Florence is the definition of the Gates of Hell determined to mean the 'tongues of heretics'? I looked through the sessions of that Council, and didn't see it addressed, but maybe I missed it. Can you name which session of the Council defined this?
EcuмENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
A (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)nd if the Council did define the gates of hell to mean the tongues of heretics, might that not lend credence to the idea that the Church will not fail due to the actions of heretics?
(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
-
There are changes in rites, but who can say 100 % it's not valid because of that?
God ask from all of us humility, in this confusion we can't believe ourselves or rely easily on others to make clear and correct conclusion. I may be wrong, I admit.
All we have are opinions, who can be erronious or correct. than for Paul VI. and John Paul II.
The real problem is that the arguments against the validity or the new rites are extremely weak and replete with errors. The validity of the new rites, as such, is 100% certain. Not only can this be proven by reason, namely, by showing that they clearly meet the criterion for validity, but it is also proven by faith, since infallibility extends to the doctrinal judgment of disciplinary laws in such a way that, in the case of rites promulgated by the Church, it prevents the Church from promulgating a rite that lacks the requisite conditions for validity.
-
The real problem is that the arguments against the validity or the new rites are extremely weak and replete with errors. The validity of the new rites, as such, is 100% certain. Not only can this be proven by reason, namely, by showing that they clearly meet the criterion for validity, but it is also proven by faith, since infallibility extends to the doctrinal judgment of disciplinary laws in such a way that, in the case of rites promulgated by the Church, it prevents the Church from promulgating a rite that lacks the requisite conditions for validity.
Do you attend the Novus Ordo mass?
-
Could you explain me how they can retain power of order if that Anglican or Lutheran order is invalid, null and void declared by pope Saint Leo XIII.?
A person retains the power or order. The reason the Anglican and Lutherans lack the power or order is not because validly ordained men lost it, but because the Anglican rite itself was invalid, which means it does not confer the power or orders upon the one being "ordained". The other reason is because only a validly consecrated bishop can make another man a bishop. So, even if the Anglicans used the Catholic rite of consecration, it would be invalid, since the minister (a layman who mistakenly thinks he's a bishops) is not capable of validly consecrating a bishop.
The reason the Lutherans lack valid orders is because Luther was only a priest, and as a mere priest, he was not capable of consecrating a bishop. The Lutheran priesthood died out when Luther died.
-
Do you attend the Novus Ordo mass?
No
-
The real problem is that the arguments against the validity or the new rites are extremely weak and replete with errors. The validity of the new rites, as such, is 100% certain. Not only can this be proven by reason, namely, by showing that they clearly meet the criterion for validity, but it is also proven by faith, since infallibility extends to the doctrinal judgment of disciplinary laws in such a way that, in the case of rites promulgated by the Church, it prevents the Church from promulgating a rite that lacks the requisite conditions for validity.
:facepalm: Nonsense. There's plenty there to establish positive doubt about the New Rites, changes to the essential form, to the adjuncta of the Rites, and the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is an unmitigated disaster, almost certainly invalid.
I agree with the principle that the Pope cannot promulgate invalid rites, but you're begging the question that these men are legitimate popes ... which is far from certain, and most likely not the case. So the doubtfulness of the New Rites is yet another indicator (not proof, since there's a logical feedback loop), but an indicator that is anothet dot confirming that the V2 papal claimants are not legitimate popes.
-
The hierarchy is the body of men vested with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, which they received from the Pope.
Sure, the authority to teach error and heresy, and to de-sanctify ... those are the marks of the false apostate Conciliar Church, not of the Catholic Church.
-
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. "Per se" or "by its very nature" means that this applies to any Catholic, including the pope.
Can you define "public sin of formal manifest heresy?" And more importantly, can you quote an authority who defines it, or an authority who even uses that specific phrase? I have never seen the phrase used by a theologian. The first person I saw who used it was Fr. Paul Kramer.
By formal, do you mean formal in a theological sense (i.e., guilty of the sin of heresy) or in a canonical sense (i.e., declared a heretic by legitimate authority)? Terms must be clearly defined before they can be applied to individual cases.
-
Since a hierarchy requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, and since bishop can only receive jurisdiction from the Pope, the only candidate for the Church with four marks is the universal Church based on Rome, which is one and the same institution that existed during the pontificate of Pius XII and the Pontificate of St. Peter.
:laugh1: You're kidding with the bolded, right? If Pius XII, or St. Pius X, or St. Pius V had been time-warped to today, they would certainly not recognize the Conciliar Abomination as the Catholic Church, but would think it was some Protestant sect.
There's nothing there but some loose material continuity, but the Conciliar Church is simply unrecognizable as the Catholic Church in its essential characteristics. All it has is a bunch of guys parading around in a variety of different-colored cassocks.
-
No
Why not? Bergoglio told you to.
-
No
Why not?
ETA: LOL Lad...jinx!
-
:facepalm: Nonsense. There's plenty there to establish positive doubt about the New Rites, changes to the essential form, to the adjuncta of the Rites, and the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is an unmitigated disaster, almost certainly invalid.
Then you should have no problem producing the evidence. Please explain what is required for a valid form and then show why the new rites lack it.
-
Why not?
ETA: LOL Lad...jinx!
And the timestamp matches to the second. I must have posted milliseconds before you did.
-
Sure, the authority to teach error and heresy, and to de-sanctify ... those are the marks of the false apostate Conciliar Church, not of the Catholic Church.
Define what you mean by the Conciliar Church and explain how it differs from the diocese and eparchies throughout the word that are in union with the local Church of Rome. Also please explain where the Catholic Church with four marks was in January of 1966, and where it - the Catholic Church with four marks - can be found today.
-
Then you should have no problem producing the evidence. Please explain what is required for a valid form and then show why the new rites lack it.
This has been dealt with 100 times. Pius XII declared what's required for the essential form. Novus Ordo removed a word from the essential form that speaks to the Sacramental effect. Pius XII declared that invocation of the Holy Ghost along with explanation of the Sacramental effect of that invocation (performed by the "ut" clause) are at the core of the essential form. On top of that the very same adjuncta that Leo XIII declared to be invalidating by themselves (even if the essential form had remained intact) of the Anglican Rite of Ordination have been excised from the NO Rite. Certainly enough there to constitute positive doubt when you tamper with the essential form as declared by Pius XII. As for episcopal consecration, the entire Rite was replaced with what mostly resembles the installation of a Patriarch (who was already a consecrated bishop), and the spiritum principalem allegedly signifying the episcopacy has not precedent for signifying that and is ambiguous at best.
Feel free to peruse Father Cekada's lengthy study on the episcopal consecration, and Father William Jenkins' treatment of the Rite of Ordination.
We don't have to prove that they're invalid. We need merely to establish positive doubt, for which there is evidence in abundance. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is no positive doubt ... which you can't do. Really your only true argument has to do with your begging the question that the V2 papal claimants are popes, which also remains in extreme positive doubt.
-
Define what you mean by the Conciliar Church and explain how it differs from the diocese and eparchies throughout the word that are in union with the local Church of Rome. Also please explain where the Catholic Church with four marks was in January of 1966, and where it - the Catholic Church with four marks - can be found today.
Enjoy.
https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/12/24/archbishop-lefebvre-conciliar-church-part-iii/
-
Quote from: PaxVobis on Today at 12:02:33 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/indefectibility-requires-a-hierarchy-with-the-power-of-jurisidisdiction/msg878832/#msg878832)
Since a hierarchy requires bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, and since bishop can only receive jurisdiction from the Pope, the only candidate for the Church with four marks is the universal Church based on Rome, which is one and the same institution that existed during the pontificate of Pius XII and the Pontificate of St. Peter.
:laugh1: You're kidding with the bolded, right? If Pius XII, or St. Pius X, or St. Pius V had been time-warped to today, they would certainly not recognize the Conciliar Abomination as the Catholic Church, but would think it was some Protestant sect.
There's nothing there but some loose material continuity, but the Conciliar Church is simply unrecognizable as the Catholic Church in its essential characteristics. All it has is a bunch of guys parading around in a variety of different-colored cassocks.
If you deny that the "Vatican II church" is the same institution that existed during the pontificate of Pius XII and all the other Popes back to St. Peter, where can that institution be found today? The institution consists of the local Church of Rome and the diocese and eparchies throughout the world in union with it. In your opinion, when did that institution cease being the Catholic Church?
-
Enjoy.
https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/12/24/archbishop-lefebvre-conciliar-church-part-iii/
I want to hear how you will answer the questions.
-
Thanks. I hope we think alike :laugh1:
If fallible authors conflated the term hierarchy with hierarchs that's no problem for Catholicism, but I don't think they necessarily did.
As a sedevacantist I think you're quite aware that perpetual doesn't mean without interruption;) If perpetual successors can be interrupted so can perpetual teaching.
You're probably also familiar with the complete destruction of the "perpetual successors" objection: https://youtu.be/p2xYLg0M2LY
Jeremiah 33:17 “For this is what the LORD says: David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel."
And right after that there was no man on the throne for 500 years until Christ came. Those who entertain the perpetual successors objection might as well call God a liar.
I mean, the objection can be dismissed by simply stating the obvious that perpetual successors in the same primacy just means that all Popes have the same authority as Peter forever. It doesn't mean we can't go a year, two or sixty witout a Pope.
Marulus,
I agree with you as to "perpetual successors" to Peter.
However, I - the author of this thread - am not arguing that the papacy has perpetual successors. If indefectibility required “perpetual successors to Peter” then you’d have an argument.
The definition of indefectibility remains intact, or at least had remained intact for centuries, despite repeated interregna and periods of a lack of a successor of Peter on the papal throne. During such times when a successor to Peter was absent, the Church remained indefectible on the Church’s own terms of understanding indefectibility.
We’re discussing indefectibility, not “perpetual successors to Peter.” Deal with the argument.
The argument is as follows: the “indefectibility” of the Church, on the Church’s own terms as she understands it, requires a hierarchy that has 3 components: a) it, as a composite body united under a certain teaching, teaches or provides to mankind the faith without error; b) it provides mankind with the means of sanctification (i.e., sacraments); c) it has the power of ruling and governing with regard to the faith, morality, Church discipline etc.
At no point in history has the Church lacked all three (or any) of those essential requirements for indefectibility. If in fact She were to lack any of those essential requirements, she would cease to be indefectible, as she has understood it.
You are arguing, without any authority yourself or citation to anything that can be thought as authoritative teaching (such as the schema prepared by heirarchs and theologians and of the Church regarding her nature for discussion at upcoming ecuмenical councils that I have cited) that the Church is indefectible while lacking one of the essential terms, c) above, that she herself understands to be essential to her indefectibility.
Incredibly, you do not see any obstacle to you doing that, and do not see how that is a problem for your position.
Deal with the argument by either showing: a) the sources that I cite don’t say what I say they say, so that, the authority I rely on gone, my argument indeed “evaporates” (as you claimed in one post, yet which you haven’t come anywhere near to showing at present), or b) authorities of greater or at least equal weight to my cited sources say something different then the sources I cited, which would give us grounds for some very interesting discussion.
So, please deal with the argument, and not evade it with red herrings about “perpetual successors” to Peter, which is not a requirement of indefectibility, which is the subject of discussion.
And welcome to the club.
DR
-
Define what you mean by the Conciliar Church and explain how it differs from the diocese and eparchies throughout the word that are in union with the local Church of Rome. Also please explain where the Catholic Church with four marks was in January of 1966, and where it - the Catholic Church with four marks - can be found today.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as the conciliar church? I certainly do not speak for all traditionalists here, but you will find that the traditionalists here who follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre (myself included) do believe that Catholic Church is occupied by a modernist and heretical sect; hence the name 'conciliar church.' That's not to say that Rome is not the true Church, but rather that she is occupied, and as far as she still maintains some views that are Catholic, Rome is still Catholic in that sense. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais' explanation of the situation is a good one, if you are interested in reading it, posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website;
Is there a conciliar church? - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/)
-
Uggh. I think the new PaxVobis screen name should be changed. I keep thinking I'm speaking to the old Pax Vobis.
Based on the timestamps of his posts, it looks like username "PaxVobis" is now suddenly username "Veritas et Caritas" without even a heads-up about it.
So much for veritas et caritas.
Edit, PS: Pax Vobis (below), thanks for letting us know.
-
I asked him kindly to change his username and he kindly sent Matthew a PM. I think it was just changed today.
-
I asked him kindly to change his username and he kindly sent Matthew a PM. I think it was just changed today.
I agree. When he first started posting, I was stunned by some of the things I was hearing from "PaxVobis" (thinking it was the original "Pax Vobis") ... until someone drew my attention to it.
-
I want to hear how you will answer the questions.
I would and have answered them the same way.
-
I agree. When he first started posting, I was stunned by some of the things I was hearing from "PaxVobis" (thinking it was the original "Pax Vobis") ... until someone drew my attention to it.
Before the older member started posting again, I didn't mind it, but now that he is back....it got very confusing.
-
Where in the Council of Florence is the definition of the Gates of Hell determined to mean the 'tongues of heretics'? I looked through the sessions of that Council, and didn't see it addressed, but maybe I missed it. Can you name which session of the Council defined this?
EcuмENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
A (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)nd if the Council did define the gates of hell to mean the tongues of heretics, might that not lend credence to the idea that the Church will not fail due to the actions of heretics?
(https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecuмenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
Sorry. It was Constantinople II.
This definitely ends the RnR position.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
"... we bear in mind what was promised about the Holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)... ”
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”
(Denz. 351)
St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his epistle to Pope Urban IV on the publication of the Catena Aurea:
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Thy heart, Most Holy Father, who art lawful heir of this Faith and this Confession, gives watchful care that the light of this so wondrous Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. xxiii, xxiv.)
Along the same lines, though perhaps not quite as precisely, St. Bede the Venerable taught:
St. Bede the Venerable: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are evil doctrines, which by seducing the unwary drag them down to hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 274.)
-
Sorry. It was Constantinople II.
This definitely ends the RnR position.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
"... we bear in mind what was promised about the Holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)... ”
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”
(Denz. 351)
St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his epistle to Pope Urban IV on the publication of the Catena Aurea:
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Thy heart, Most Holy Father, who art lawful heir of this Faith and this Confession, gives watchful care that the light of this so wondrous Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. xxiii, xxiv.)
Along the same lines, though perhaps not quite as precisely, St. Bede the Venerable taught:
St. Bede the Venerable: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are evil doctrines, which by seducing the unwary drag them down to hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 274.)
Okay, thanks.
You say above that this definitely ends the R&R position. Do you know how many times sedevacantists have made this same proclamation over the years regarding the end of R&R, using various arguments? And yet.....R&R is still going strong. And your definition of the Council and St Thomas seems only to back up R&R, by saying that the heretics will not prevail against the Church. That's something that we already know.
The Catholic Church is still in Rome, and visible, though she is occupied by modernist heretics. I can't see changing my view of this by reason of the quotes from the Council or St. Thomas and other Fathers, though others here may have a different view of the situation.
-
Marulus,
I agree with you as to "perpetual successors" to Peter.
However, I - the author of this thread - am not arguing that the papacy has perpetual successors. If indefectibility required “perpetual successors to Peter” then you’d have an argument.
The definition of indefectibility remains intact, or at least had remained intact for centuries, despite repeated interregna and periods of a lack of a successor of Peter on the papal throne. During such times when a successor to Peter was absent, the Church remained indefectible on the Church’s own terms of understanding indefectibility.
We’re discussing indefectibility, not “perpetual successors to Peter.” Deal with the argument.
The argument is as follows: the “indefectibility” of the Church, on the Church’s own terms as she understands it, requires a hierarchy that has 3 components: a) it, as a composite body united under a certain teaching, teaches or provides to mankind the faith without error; b) it provides mankind with the means of sanctification (i.e., sacraments); c) it has the power of ruling and governing with regard to the faith, morality, Church discipline etc.
At no point in history has the Church lacked all three (or any) of those essential requirements for indefectibility. If in fact She were to lack any of those essential requirements, she would cease to be indefectible, as she has understood it.
You are arguing, without any authority yourself or citation to anything that can be thought as authoritative teaching (such as the schema prepared by heirarchs and theologians and of the Church regarding her nature for discussion at upcoming ecuмenical councils that I have cited) that the Church is indefectible while lacking one of the essential terms, c) above, that she herself understands to be essential to her indefectibility.
Incredibly, you do not see any obstacle to you doing that, and do not see how that is a problem for your position.
Deal with the argument by either showing: a) the sources that I cite don’t say what I say they say, so that, the authority I rely on gone, my argument indeed “evaporates” (as you claimed in one post, yet which you haven’t come anywhere near to showing at present), or b) authorities of greater or at least equal weight to my cited sources say something different then the sources I cited, which would give us grounds for some very interesting discussion.
So, please deal with the argument, and not evade it with red herrings about “perpetual successors” to Peter, which is not a requirement of indefectibility, which is the subject of discussion.
And welcome to the club.
DR
My response wasn't a red herring I was making an analogy but I should've been clearer about why it's more than an analogy.
Your argument is based merely on quotes from theologians?
Sedevacantism is required by multiple dogmas including the unity of the Church so obviously any probabilistic argument (and that's what you have since your quotes are fallible) must yield to a deductive argument from dogma.
God was even so nice as to spell it out in cuм Ex Apostolatus.
It's late, maybe I'll respond more tomorrow.
-
Okay, thanks.
You say above that this definitely ends the R&R position. Do you know how many times sedevacantists have made this same proclamation over the years regarding the end of R&R, using various arguments? And yet.....R&R is still going strong. And your definition of the Council and St Thomas seems only to back up R&R, by saying that the heretics will not prevail against the Church. That's something that we already know.
The Catholic Church is still in Rome, and visible, though she is occupied by modernist heretics. I can't see changing my view of this by reason of the quotes from the Council or St. Thomas and other Fathers, though others here may have a different view of the situation.
If the Vatican II sect isn't overcome by heretics I don't know what is.
I mean RnR is ended in the same sense sola fide is ended by James. Doesn't mean Protestants will acknowledge it of course.
-
If the Vatican II sect isn't overcome by heretics I don't know what is.
I mean RnR is ended in the same sense sola fide is ended by James. Doesn't mean Protestants will acknowledge it of course.
Except that it isn't completely overcome by heretics. There are still aspects of Catholicism in Rome. Now some will say that this is the same thing as saying that there's still some Catholicism left in the heretical Lutheran or Anglican sects. I don't see it as the same thing, since both Luther, and the Anglicans in England, formally broke with Rome. I posted an explanation of this earlier on this thread today. It provides a good study of my stance, and that of most of those who follow Archbishop Lefebvre:
Is there a conciliar church? - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/)I don't understand what you mean to say by R&R being ended in the same sense as sola fide (faith alone) is ended by James (king James bible, do you mean?).
-
We might consider the situation of the early Church. Arguably, after the defection of St. Peter, "I know not the Man," only one bishop held the faith, the youngest of them all, St. John the Evangelist. Is it not the phrase "I know not the Man" the logical equivalent of "I know not the God-Man"? Christ is one Person. We know not whether or not St. Peter committed a mortal or venial sin, the Fathers vary in their opinions. It seems to us that St. Peter must have committed a mortal sin, and, at that, a mortal sin against Faith. And the other apostles arguably committed mortal sins by also denying their Lord. Assuming all this to be true, roughly 10% of the Church remained faithful in the person of St. John. But the question still must be asked, "What does it mean to 'defect' from the Church"? Did St. Peter defect from the Church, of which he was its original head?
-
We might consider the situation of the early Church. Arguably, after the defection of St. Peter, "I know not the Man," only one bishop held the faith, the youngest of them all, St. John the Evangelist. Is it not the phrase "I know not the Man" the logical equivalent of "I know not the God-Man"? Christ is one Person. We know not whether or not St. Peter committed a mortal or venial sin, the Fathers vary in their opinions. It seems to us that St. Peter must have committed a mortal sin, and, at that, a mortal sin against Faith. And the other apostles arguably committed mortal sins by also denying their Lord. Assuming all this to be true, roughly 10% of the Church remained faithful in the person of St. John. But the question still must be asked, "What does it mean to 'defect' from the Church"? Did St. Peter defect from the Church, of which he was its original head?
I thought The Church wasn't The Church until Pentecost.
-
I asked him kindly to change his username and he kindly sent Matthew a PM. I think it was just changed today.
It looks like the new Veritas et Caritas account doesn't exist. Not sure what happened.
-
We might consider the situation of the early Church. Arguably, after the defection of St. Peter, "I know not the Man," only one bishop held the faith, the youngest of them all, St. John the Evangelist. Is it not the phrase "I know not the Man" the logical equivalent of "I know not the God-Man"? Christ is one Person. We know not whether or not St. Peter committed a mortal or venial sin, the Fathers vary in their opinions. It seems to us that St. Peter must have committed a mortal sin, and, at that, a mortal sin against Faith. And the other apostles arguably committed mortal sins by also denying their Lord. Assuming all this to be true, roughly 10% of the Church remained faithful in the person of St. John. But the question still must be asked, "What does it mean to 'defect' from the Church"? Did St. Peter defect from the Church, of which he was its original head?
Jesus gave Peter charge after the resurrection, "do you love me" 3x.
-
The definition of indefectibility remains intact, or at least had remained intact for centuries, despite repeated interregna and periods of a lack of a successor of Peter on the papal throne. During such times when a successor to Peter was absent, the Church remained indefectible on the Church’s own terms of understanding indefectibility. Agreed.
We’re discussing indefectibility, not “perpetual successors to Peter.” Deal with the argument. Okay.
The argument is as follows: the “indefectibility” of the Church, on the Church’s own terms as she understands it, requires a hierarchy that has 3 components: a) it, as a composite body united under a certain teaching, teaches or provides to mankind the faith without error; (sounds like trad bishops) b) it provides mankind with the means of sanctification (i.e., sacraments); (sounds like all trad clergy; in fact, I'm fairly certain no one besides trad clergy meet this definition) c) it has the power of ruling and governing with regard to the faith, morality, Church discipline etc. (Yes, trad clergy do these things.)
-
5:50 minute long youtube from Fr. Hesse on the Indefectibility and visibility of the Church.....
https://youtu.be/ARwrAT4yiag
-
Yeti,
"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."
No Trad bishop has that "legislative, judicial or coercive" power over all Catholics in his "territory." The Church's "power of jurisdiction," and hence its indefectibility, is gone.
Again, applying the principles of indefectibility as the Church understands it, Sedes cannot reject the Novus Ordo because it violates the indefectibility of the Church and at the same time claim the Church exists today indefectible . . . unless they apply a different understanding of indefectibility, which is what they attack the R & R for doing.
That's my point, really. The elimination of a "solution" that is contradictory on a search for truth and an answer which, whatever it is, will not - cannot of necessity -violate the law of contradiction or be inconsistent.
-
No Trad bishop has that "legislative, judicial or coercive" power over all Catholics in his "territory." The Church's "power of jurisdiction," and hence its indefectibility, is gone.
So now you've expanded this made-up principle to requiring that bishops must have jurisdiction over a "territory". :facepalm:
Nor does your position have anything to do with sedeprivationists like myself who hold that some bishops (Eastern Rite in particular) still retrain "territorial" jurisdiction.
-
Okay, thanks.
You say above that this definitely ends the R&R position. Do you know how many times sedevacantists have made this same proclamation over the years regarding the end of R&R, using various arguments? And yet.....R&R is still going strong. And your definition of the Council and St Thomas seems only to back up R&R, by saying that the heretics will not prevail against the Church. That's something that we already know.
The Catholic Church is still in Rome, and visible, though she is occupied by modernist heretics. I can't see changing my view of this by reason of the quotes from the Council or St. Thomas and other Fathers, though others here may have a different view of the situation.
The same thing could be said about BoD and EENS (though I am not trying to derail the topic of the thread, just pointing out how people cling to their positions despite contrary infallible evidence).
-
So now you've expanded this made-up principle to requiring that bishops must have jurisdiction over a "territory". :facepalm:
Nor does your position have anything to do with sedeprivationists like myself who hold that some bishops (Eastern Rite in particular) still retrain "territorial" jurisdiction.
I put the word "territory" in quotes to indicate an area where the bishop has real power or authority over Catholics in the area simply by virtue of their being baptized members of the Church. But I suspect you knew this, and were merely posturing, as usual.
Convenient: you could hold anything if it's not subject to scrutiny. Name the bishop with the Catholic faith and true power of jurisdiction over Catholics in his "territory."
As you know, you need both for indefectibility: the Catholic faith and the power of jurisdiction. Sedevacantist totalists ignore the necessity of power of jurisdiction for obvious reasons discussed in this thread. Sedeprivationists manipulate "power of jurisdiction" so that those who they say are real hierarchs at the same time have no power over them, and also those same "real" hierarchs don't have the Catholic faith.
-
Could someone explain how these quotes effect/deal with the different 'flavours' of sede(vacante/priv etc)?
Pope Paul IV
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
Apostolic Constitution - 15 February 1559
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;So then,
just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
In order, then, that
the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
by the union of the clergy,
the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
faith and
communion,
he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
their visible foundation.
Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
we judge it necessary,
with the approbation of the sacred council, and
for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
to propound the doctrine concerning the
institution,
permanence and
nature
of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3
9.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
And also
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
3. So then,
just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
4. In order, then, that
the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
by the union of the clergy,
the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
faith and
communion,
he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
their visible foundation.
5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
we judge it necessary,
with the approbation of the sacred council, and
for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
to propound the doctrine concerning the
institution,
permanence and
nature
of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.
-
I put the word "territory" in quotes to indicate an area where the bishop has real power or authority over Catholics in the area simply by virtue of their being baptized members of the Church. But I suspect you knew this, and were merely posturing, as usual.
Convenient: you could hold anything if it's not subject to scrutiny. Name the bishop with the Catholic faith and true power of jurisdiction over Catholics in his "territory."
As you know, you need both for indefectibility: the Catholic faith and the power of jurisdiction. Sedevacantist totalists ignore the necessity of power of jurisdiction for obvious reasons discussed in this thread. Sedeprivationists manipulate "power of jurisdiction" so that those who they say are real hierarchs at the same time have no power over them, and also those same "real" hierarchs don't have the Catholic faith.
So, where does your position fit in? What is your position? That the NO is the Catholic Church and those "bishops" are the Church hierarchy?
-
So, where does your position fit in? What is your position? That the NO is the Catholic Church and those "bishops" are the Church hierarchy?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-hideous-exception-proves-the-glorious-rule/msg798978/#msg798978
I don't maintain a fiction that the NO popes are not popes, or the NO bishops are not bishops in the Catholic Church: they are the popes and bishops God put there, in what the Catholic Church has become according to His plan, both just and merciful, which has been consistent with "Israel" under both covenants. Indeed, what is happening to the Church now can be understand by looking to the Israel of old: the same faults, sins, etc., the same pattern being repeated.
I don't try to explain away the "Crisis" by contorting principles that applied before the Crisis in an effort to make them fit the current situation. That makes a mockery of truth and exposes what is simply a position that is not interesting in dealing with facts but maintaining its preference and inclination at whatever cost, even if it entails holding to a contradiction - which it ignores to hold onto its cherished opinion or belief, which the contradiction discredits totally.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-hideous-exception-proves-the-glorious-rule/msg798978/#msg798978
I don't maintain a fiction that the NO popes are not popes, or the NO bishops are not bishops in the Catholic Church: they are the popes and bishops God put there, in what the Catholic Church has become according to His plan, both just and merciful, which has been consistent with "Israel" under both covenants. Indeed, what is happening to the Church now can be understand by looking to the Israel of old: the same faults, sins, etc., the same pattern being repeated.
I don't try to explain away the "Crisis" by contorting principles that applied before the Crisis in an effort to make them fit the current situation. That makes a mockery of truth and exposes what is simply a position that is not interesting in dealing with facts but maintaining its preference and inclination at whatever cost, even if it entails holding to a contradiction - which it ignores to hold onto its cherished opinion or belief, which the contradiction discredits totally.
So the current Catholic Church is just acting badly/sinfully? Where do you go to mass?
-
So the current Catholic Church is just acting badly/sinfully? Where do you go to mass?
Here's a talk given by. Fr. Hesse that addresses this. Stubborn posted this earlier today on this thread:
Fr. Hesse on the Indefectibility and Visibility of the Church - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARwrAT4yiag)
-
.
The more it's discussed, the more I incline to the idea that sede bishops and priests are the true hierarchy of the Church.
Lame.