Author Topic: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: (Read 6420 times)

Endeavor · « **Reply #135 on:** June 28, 2020, 10:55:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 25, 2020, 07:39:58 AM

This is all in the interests of pushing this bogus Pius XII bishop as the only "pure" one left.

This nonsense about a pure bishop is tiresome. Why is it that nobody can know his name. There is no address and no phone number.
Where does he say Mass? Or is he a figment of someone's fevered imagination?

agnesrose · « **Reply #136 on:** June 28, 2020, 11:23:16 AM »

Quote from: Endeavor on June 28, 2020, 10:55:19 AM

This nonsense about a pure bishop is tiresome. Why is it that nobody can know his name. There is no address and no phone number.
Where does he say Mass? Or is he a figment of someone's fevered imagination?

I agree with you Endeavor, I myself have asked for his name only to be met with silence. I am only searching because of the distress this has caused my family, I am starting to think that "sedevacantistism" is just poppycock and full of charlatans

Ladislaus · « **Reply #137 on:** June 28, 2020, 12:54:55 PM »

Quote from: Endeavor on June 28, 2020, 10:55:19 AM

Or is he a figment of someone's fevered imagination?

This is very likely the case. Or the man is a con artist like Ambrose Moran.

Yeti · « **Reply #138 on:** June 28, 2020, 02:46:16 PM »

REDACTED.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #139 on:** July 06, 2020, 04:53:29 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on May 22, 2020, 03:03:10 PM

The oldest living Bishops are mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals

This is a question to sedevacantists: Will any length of purported interregnum make you re-think whether we really are in an interregnum? Even if you think a 62-year interregnum is still possible, does a 65 or at least a 70 year interregnum stretch the limit?

Why does the time matter? Because, Bishops receive Appointment to Office by the Pope that Appoints them. Of every Bishop, it can be said, Bishop X received his Authority from Pope Y. Thus, the Apostolic Succession and the Petrine Succession are intimately connected.

Hence, it follows also from the Dogma of Apostolicity that the Church cannot be without Successors to St. Peter forever. For the Petrine Succession being thereby disrupted, the Apostolic Succession also will eventually cease, when all Papally-Appointed-Bishops finally die.

Take a look at the link. Only one Bishop was Consecrated in 1958. (That Bishop was Appointed only in 1960 per http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html) Only 4 living Bishops were Consecrated before 3 Jun 1963. Another 4, 8 in all, were Consecrated by 1965.

So has not the hypothesis of an interregnum or sede vacante starting in 1958, at least, been demonstrably falsified by this point? Will not the idea of a sede vacante starting in 1962 or 1965 be clearly disproven in just another few years? At some point, sedevacantism, being only a human opinion, and not a divine dogma, must give place to reason, and admit itself falsified by the length of interregnum. If it is true that the Church needs perpetual Successors to St. Peter, that She must always remain Apostolic not only in Orders but also in Jurisdiction or Apostolic Authority, and that Bishops receive Authority only from the Roman Pontiff, at the very least a 65 or 70 year interregnum with no pre-65 Bishops remaining must be adjudged impossible by Catholics conscious of these doctrines and dogmas.

Thoughts?

In one of his interviews with Louis Verracchio, John Lane addresses this argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2883&v=3I8oMvnbKLc

In an email exchange he had Salza and Sisco, he summed the argument up thus:

Quote

I point out that the acts of jurisdiction of a putative pope would be valid by virtue of supplied jurisdiction, so that the extinction of the hierarchy is not even a concern, let alone an imminent threat to the notion that Paul VI, for example, was not pope. So, I say that if you can show me why sedevacantism as such leads necessarily to the extinction of the hierarchy, please do so.

http://www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1840&sid=31a1abd1c49dac27a9ca95a359f500dd

If I find the substantive argument in writing, I'll post it.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #140 on:** July 07, 2020, 12:31:50 AM »

Hi Decem Rationis. Yeah, that's the claim made to save SVism, but it is contrary to cuм Ex and to Fr. Gueranger:

cuм Ex is about the only docuмent in Church history that speaks of a heretical Pontiff, and it clearly says his appointments will not confer any authority or office on anyone, to wit, "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;" This means the Church has defected and lost Her Apostolicity if there has really been a 62-year vacancy. But we who have the Faith know that Church defection is impossible. Ergo, there hasn't been a 62 year vacancy, and the Apostolic Church continues because of Papal Appointments.

If you want it from another Theologian, here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, showing a non-Catholic, who himself lacks mission, cannot cause it to be transmitted to another: "Jerusalem, were deﬁled by heresy; they became chairs of pestilence; and having corrupted the faith they received from Rome, they could not transmit to others the mission they themselves had forfeited. Sad indeed was the ruin of such pillars as these! Peter’s hand had placed them in the Church. They had merited the love and veneration of men; but they fell; and their fall gave one more proof of the solidity of that ediﬁce, which Christ Himself had built on Peter. The unity of the Church was made more visible. Obliged by the treachery of her own favoured children to deprive them of the privileges they had received from her, Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power." https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/

Fr. G doesn't say the appointments were valid, but only because the Pope or Church supplied jurisdiction, or that Christ Himself did. He says they conferred no authority whatsover, which is my position. Fr. Gueranger clearly says heretics are unable to transmit mission. To put that in plain language, no jurisdiction will be supplied to heretics' appointments. They will confer no authority on anyone.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #141 on:** July 07, 2020, 06:22:43 AM »

Here's another relevant excerpt from the discussion between John Lane and Louis Verracchio:

https://ytcropper.com/cropped/wI5f0455e9cb956

Xavier - as to cuм Ex, Mr. Lane argues that the penalty aspect of it - all actions, appointments, etc. of a heretic pope are void - is merely human, not divine law, and he says theologians back him on that. He also says that the theologians support him on his position on supplied jurisdiction for the act of an anti-pope in the appointment of a bishop with the Catholic faith to a see established by a true pope.

As to Dom G, that's an opinion in a theological work on the liturgy not specifically directed to this ecclessiological questions. A lawyer would call that "dicta." Again, Lane indicates he has theologians supporting him in relevant treatises or manuals addressing jurisdiction, or at least that there is nothing in the discussions of supplied jurisdiction which indicate his position is off base.

The point being, your position is disputed. Being disputed, you have not proved Sedevacantism to be shown to be heretical - as I believe you have claimed on this basis.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #142 on:** July 07, 2020, 07:34:10 AM »

Let me ask you one thing, DR: if even a 62 year vacancy is possible, is there any limit at all to the length of a vacancy? Is a 100 year vacancy possible? a 620 year one. A 1000 year one? Can the See have been vacant from 1100 or 1200 as Ibranyi claims? Clearly, that is wrong, and there is a limit. I submit that that limit is the time it takes for all Papally Appointed Bishops to die or resign.

The solitary evasion is very frigid. It should be noted early sedevacantists did not claim this but openly acknowledged themselves that their theory required that the Cardinals and Bishops appointed by the "AntiPopes" were not even Cardinals at all, nor had authority. This latter day evasion is just one, last, desperate attempt to save sedevacantism from reducing into open heresy in my opinion.

As for the claims of supplied jurisdiction, jurisdiction is not supplied to heretics. Are the appointments of the Patriarch of Constantinople or of Moscow authority-conferring because of supplied jurisdiction. If they are not, then neither are those of alleged heretic non-popes.

Endeavor · « **Reply #143 on:** July 07, 2020, 08:04:25 AM »

As if this Pure Bishop theory was not crazy enough, I will add to it. Those like James Kosek and others in this circle claim the mother of the sibling group The Band Perry (country) was instrumental in getting this bishop to visit America. He was allegedly coming to A America to consecrate Kosek as bishop. Also, the questionable Francis Miller (self-proclaimed ofm) in his long quest for the bishop's mitre. It never ends with sedevacantists.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #144 on:** July 07, 2020, 08:20:53 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on July 07, 2020, 07:34:10 AM

Let me ask you one thing, DR: if even a 62 year vacancy is possible, is there any limit at all to the length of a vacancy? Is a 100 year vacancy possible? a 620 year one. A 1000 year one? Can the See have been vacant from 1100 or 1200 as Ibranyi claims? Clearly, that is wrong, and there is a limit. I submit that that limit is the time it takes for all Papally Appointed Bishops to die or resign.

The solitary evasion is very frigid. It should be noted early sedevacantists did not claim this but openly acknowledged themselves that their theory required that the Cardinals and Bishops appointed by the "AntiPopes" were not even Cardinals at all, nor had authority. This latter day evasion is just one, last, desperate attempt to save sedevacantism from reducing into open heresy in my opinion.

As for the claims of supplied jurisdiction, jurisdiction is not supplied to heretics. Are the appointments of the Patriarch of Constantinople or of Moscow authority-conferring because of supplied jurisdiction. If they are not, then neither are those of alleged heretic non-popes.

Nothing is impossible with God. I will not presume to place time or any other restrictions on the providence and power of God.

However, we have principles and truths which we can discuss and apply. You need - to prove your point - to establish the principle that the apostolic nature of the Church requires that there be a living ordinary who was appointed by a true pope possessing the fullness of a pope's ordinary jurisdiction over the Church.

I do not think you have established that point. As a side note, I do not even think you have established the necessity of a bishop with "ordinary" jurisdiction for the Church's apostolic nature to continue, much less one appointed by a true pope who himself possessed a pope's ordinary jurisdiction.

In any event, Mr. Lane I believe shares your view that there must at least be a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. He argues that such jurisdiction can be supplied by the Church to cover the act of appointing a bishop who possesses the Catholic faith to a legitimate see by an anti-pope who lacks the ordinary jurisdiction of a true pope.

So that is the issue for discussion. Is he right? Or, if the question is (as likely) not clear, is his position defensible and one that is in accordance with the principles involved as developed by the Church and her competent theologians?

That question is likely beyond us - even most of the necessary resources to settle it (theological manuals in Latin only even if they can be found by us) are likely beyond us. But perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation about it using resources we do have access to.

I have Salaverri's volume on the Church and will look for his discussion, but reading that thing is like doing a crossword puzzle at times and it would take me days to probably get a grasp of his view even if I had nothing else to attend to.

Anyway, there it is.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #145 on:** July 07, 2020, 08:35:13 AM »

Thanks, DR. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. It is a difficult situation, to be sure, in the Church today, no matter what position we take. As I study the crisis, it seems to me that sedevacantism in the sense of a 5 or 15 year vacancy going back one or two pontificates may be acceptable. But going back especially all the way to Pope Pius XII seems like a stretch. Could sedevacantists at least not acknowledge Pope John XXIII (whom some call doubtfully Pope) may have been Pope? That would buy them about 4 to 5 more years and, I think, about 2 to 3 Bishops still remaining. Yes, I'm aware of John Lane's theory; it is an ingenious one, I agree. But I personally feel the sources don't say that. And for me cuм Ex, Fr. G etc (there are some others, if you're interested) are clear. But I'm willing to give 5 to 10 more years for the sedevacantists - and for all of us really - to more carefully observe current events in the Church and discern what are the best steps to take. May Our Lord Jesus and Immaculate Mother Mary guide us all. Amen.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #146 on:** July 07, 2020, 08:38:04 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on July 07, 2020, 08:35:13 AM

May Our Lord Jesus and Immaculate Mother Mary guide us all. Amen.

There (and in many other thing as Catholic men - deo gratias!) we are in agreement.

Amen!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #147 on:** July 07, 2020, 09:08:14 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on July 07, 2020, 06:22:43 AM

Xavier - as to cuм Ex, Mr. Lane argues that the penalty aspect of it - all actions, appointments, etc. of a heretic pope are void - is merely human, not divine law, and he says theologians back him on that. He also says that the theologians support him on his position on supplied jurisdiction for the act of an anti-pope in the appointment of a bishop with the Catholic faith to a see established by a true pope.

Yes, this is my belief as well. On the contrary, you had St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII indicating the opposite regarding the conclave that would follow them.

So, for instance, with regard to sedeprivationism, cuм ex would have disposed of the material office in addition to the formal loss of office. So it's a way of saying that if the office is not formally occupied due to heresy, then he's effecting the material stripping of office along with the formal loss, whereas with the edicts of St. Pius X and Pius XII they would retain material office, even if by divine law they were not capable of formally exercising it due to heresy.

Aristotl · « **Reply #148 on:** July 14, 2020, 09:52:07 AM »

Quote from: Endeavor on July 07, 2020, 08:04:25 AM

As if this Pure Bishop theory was not crazy enough, I will add to it. Those like James Kosek and others in this circle claim the mother of the sibling group The Band Perry (country) was instrumental in getting this bishop to visit America. He was allegedly coming to A America to consecrate Kosek as bishop. Also, the questionable Francis Miller (self-proclaimed ofm) in his long quest for the bishop's mitre. It never ends with sedevacantists.

I have met with this man this past week and I asked many questions and I will respond to just a few. As to giving Father Kosek and Francis Miller the Bishopric, he said " I wanted to speak with the two of them and see if they are Catholic or are pretenders like so many out there who want money. He said after speaking with Father Kosek he needs a great deal of training before he should be dealing with people. As to Father Miller, there are too MANY questions about his character". As to the Church He does not agree with the sedevacantists he said they pick and choose what they believe from Pope to Pope. He said that he is Roman Catholic and does not recognize Francis or any of the others back to John XXIII as pope. One thing that he did mention is that he would be willing to work with any priest that wishes to be Catholic. Yes, I have met Marie and she did bring him to America.

Yeti · « **Reply #149 on:** July 25, 2020, 09:26:08 AM »

Quote from: Aristotl on July 14, 2020, 09:52:07 AM

As to the Church He does not agree with the sedevacantists he said they pick and choose what they believe from Pope to Pope. He said that he is Roman Catholic and does not recognize Francis or any of the others back to John XXIII as pope.

The definition of a sedevacantist is someone who believes the seat of St. Peter is vacant. So if he does not recognize Francis (and presumably not Benedict either) as pope then by definition he is a sedevacantist.

Author Topic: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: (Read 6420 times)

Endeavor

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

agnesrose

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Ladislaus

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Yeti

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Nishant Xavier

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Nishant Xavier

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Endeavor

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Nishant Xavier

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

DecemRationis

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Ladislaus

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Aristotl

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals:

Yeti

Re: List of Oldest living Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: