Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity  (Read 6961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity
« on: June 04, 2012, 08:06:52 AM »
It looks like Griff might answer my objection in part 3.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Jun/12junstr.htm

I might not be a plant but I have contributed to the evil with my blabber mouth.  This despite the fact that I am rather quiet in person.  I have had two public lapses into vengeance in my 7 years as a SV not learning much from my first mistake.  I am scanalized when people I hold in high esteem act in a none-Catholic way but then I end up acting worse than they.  

Dear Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.  

I await an opportunity for someone I look up to to hurt me again so I can keep my mouth shut and offer it up like real Catholics do!

Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2012, 10:04:50 AM »
Maybe it's just me, but I can not understand what Mr. Ruby is driving at.

That there are paid Novus Ordo Plants around the traditional chapels?  I wouldn't put it past them.

There are corrupt trad chapels and Mass centres, no doubt about that.  Is he saying they are run by plants?

But mostly, I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means.  He said he is going to cause suspicion, but I do not understand who he is suspicious of.


Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2012, 09:43:09 PM »
Quote from: Elizabeth
I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means.


You are not alone.

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]


Quote from: Mr. Ruby
I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]


This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly. Moreover, this illustrates the problems and frustrations that non-sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantist polemicists have with the explanation of the present day crisis of the Church as set forth by the sedevacantists: the flagrant ignorance of the principles of theology and Canon Law; the recourse to extravagant conspiracy theories about "infiltration" or demonic influence without considering the predicament more carefully; the proclivity to categorize those of different mind as "false brothers;" &c.

A consistent sedevacantist would admit that it is precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant (according to their understanding) that no traditionalist Bishop can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them [1] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II.).

The reality is that the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, pres-byteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.

Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).

It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia  ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).

Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt” [emphasis mine]).

Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII, De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “Quemlibet clericuм oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).

One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi. Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly  bereft of the sensus Catholicus.

------------------------


Notes:

[1] The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, vide “apostolicity (mark of the Church),” (Rev. Frs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Salvatore Garofalo; trans. Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Doronzo; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1952).[/size]

Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2012, 09:51:40 PM »
Another problem with Mr. Ruby's article is that he seems to categorically and exclusively co-equate the sedevacantist "movement" with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. It would be erroneous and schismatic, and even bordering on heresy, to assert that those who call themselves "sedevacantists" alone constitute the true children of Holy Mother Church, or that the Church is to be found only in their midst.

Such a train of thought only brings up and exacerbates grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity of the Ecclesia docens, etc.  

Certain sedevacantists have also erred in stating categorically that Christ Himself reigns over the Church, and that suffices to explain away the above-mentioned questions.

Actually, if not carefully worded, this sort of theory can easily lead to serious errors and even heresy.

The first footnote on the following page taken from Msgr. Charles Journet's The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954) elucidates upon this saddening misunderstanding.



Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2012, 06:52:25 AM »
You seem to know more about Griff than Griff himself knows.  Among some sedevacantists he is considered to be too lenient on his insistence that you do not have to be a SV to be a member of the Catholic Church.

When people start talking about contemporaries on this blog is when falsities and all the negative results that come with it arise.