CathInfo.com

Quote from: Nishant

1. When a Catholic dares to "steal" Holy Orders from the hands of a schismatic bishop outside the Church, he incurs an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means only the Pope can remit that censure, which according to you is not possible now.

Any valid Sacraments existing outside of the Catholic Church are considered to have been stolen by the non-Catholic, not the other way around.  The excommunication is by ecclesiastical law, not by divine law. Epikeia applies to ecclesiastical law. I will skip a lot of things you said, because they are all excused by epikeia in an extreme circuмstance.

Schuckardt and his little group had priests, had the sacraments, had the Mass, God saw to it that he and his little group had what they needed to persevere in the faith, crisis or no crisis - but no, Schuckardt willingly threw that all away, this is why you cannot claim epikeia.

                                                          Also

FYI, if there is an Old Catholic who is able to administer the sacraments in an emergency - THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET ORDAINED SO THAT YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. Try to always remember this, it's a good thing to know.

                                                            Also

It is because it is an absolute MUST that one MUST receive Holy Orders from a bishop of the Catholic Church, which is to say conversely that one CAN NEVER receive Holy Orders from a bishop in schism without themselves entering schism - EVEN SCHUCKARDT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT PLEAD EPIKEIA, THAT IT COULD NOT APPLY. You are worse than Schuckardt to keep harping on about this ridiculous reasoning in your attempt to justify schism.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella

Nado has been told repeatedly that the concept of Epikeia des not apply to Jurisdiction issues. Therefore a false and schismatic Bishop will not become a real and true Bishop

Yet, you believe a false schismatic pope can become a true pope just because he has possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.  

Yet, you believe a false schismatic sect can become the true church just because they have possession of worldly things (Catholic Property), yet lacks the Faith.

You have only your opinion that the pope is a false pope, the really terrible thing is, that is all you will ever have.

The Sedevacantists position is one that has always been held as the least probable theological opinion and yet we fail to understand how one would base their salvation on a debatable theological opinion which in itself is not even the most probable according to Catholic teaching.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).

The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.

Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.

Quote from: Cantarella

As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.

This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.

Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.

This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.