Dear John,
just a remark: I am not interested in bitter discussion which can easily drift into a very uncharitable area.
I believe everything that could be said was said, and that this discussion will not bring up anything new, nor will it change our respective opinions.
I'll quickly answer your objections and will leave this topic afterwards, only coming back if I, by accident, find something very new and very clear.
Let us remember each other especially in the Holy Rosary on it's feast.
BUT THIS IS NOT BEING DONE CONTRARY TO ALL RIGHT AND LAW AND IS CERTAINLY NO CRIME AGAINST THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PRESERVED.
If the consecration of a vagrant bishop in the sedevacantist premise is meant, I do concede. If a claim to jurisdiction is meant, I deny and and I deny the consequent, as the principle of the unity of the Church is the Roman Pontiff, solely.
WHICH CATHOLIC BISHOP IS NOT LINKED IN COMMUNION OF FAITH AND LOVE WITH PETER?
Granted.
WE ARE NOT DENYING THE DOCTRINE THAT ORDINARY JURISDICTION FLOWS FROM THE ROMAN SEE, SOMETIMES IMPLICITYLY, MEDIATELY OR BY LEGAL WILL.
Good, this is necessary as it is theologically certain, at least.
DO YOU ACCUSE OUR CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF BEING IN SCHISM?
If this means the vagrant bishops under the sedevacantist premise, I deny (any schism) simply speaking. If this means bishops under the same premise who claim jurisdiction and/or refuse communion to other Catholics (Bp. Vezelis, Bp. Kelly), I do accuse.
WOULD NOT THESE BISHOPS READILY BE RULED AND DISCIPLINED BY THE VICAR OF CHRIST?
I do not understand the question.
TO PROLONG THE MISSION OF CHRIST IS PRECISELY WHY THE CONSECRATIONS WERE DONE.
I do distinguish, under the SV premise: To prolong the mission of Christ in regards to providing the Sacraments to the faithful in order to maintain the ordinary economy of salvation of the Catholic Church, I concede, but in regards to the continuation of the Apostolic Hierarchy, I deny.
“HE MUST LEAVE A VISIBLE HIEARCHY AMONG US” THE VISIBLE HIEARCHY IS NOT IN THE NO. NOR IS IT HIDDEN FOR THIS WOULD CONTRADICT ITS VISIBILITY. WHERE IS THE VISIBLE HIEARCHY?
The question of "where" the visible hierarchy is to be found must be taken separately from the issue of the conferring of hierarchic powers.
OUR BISHOPS HAVE SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES, THEY WERE CONSECRATED BY VALID SUCCESSORS WHO HAD THE APOSTOLIC MANDATE. THEY WERE CONSECRATED BY THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT. IF THE CHURCH IS NOT WITH US IT IS NOWHERE.
That they (the first traditionalist bishops, at least) were consecrated by Bishops who
have had ordinary jurisdiction, I grant. But Church demands the Apostolic Mandate for every and single new consecration, even just for the blessing of a territorial Abbot.
The whole point of my writing was, to show, that it is above the capacity of any Bishops but the Bishop of Rome to give the necessary Mission, by whatever means.
AND “IF” THERE IS A SUPERIOR IN THIS JUDICIARY HIERCHY, “THEN” IT IS HIS TASK TO ELEVATE INFERIORS TO THE DECREE OF AN SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES, BY GIVING HIM A SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. BUT THERE IS NOT A SUPERIOR IN THIS JUDICARY HIERCHY, THEREFORE WHAT FOLLOWS AFTER “THEN” IS NOT APPLICABLE.
I deny, please give prove for this major, minor and conclusion. (Namely, that inferiors automatically inherit the juridical powers of their superiors, and that Bishops can pass on Apostolic Mission).
Just because there is a lack of a superior in the hierarchy, it does not logically follow the the inferiors receive the power resting in the superior. If this were the case, the whole canonical procedures, states of vacancies etc. were useless.
PETER DID NOT GIVE EXPRESSED CONSENT IN EACH CASE BUT THEY ALL HAD THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND FULL ORDINARY JURISDICTION. THIS POINT CANNOT BE DENIED YET YOU DO NOT GRANT IT.
On the contrary, I do grant it, as the wording of implicit or explicit does not concern me. I do not say that
expressed consent it necessary, but consent nevertheless.
As I said before, I cannot see what role it plays in regards to the present discussion, whether in ancient times Papal consent was expressed or not.
HAVE THE TRADITIONAL BISHOPS REJECTED THIS SUPREME AUTHORITY? YOU DO NOT NEED LONG QUOTES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Just to make sure: I don't quote in order to confuse or take pride or whatever, but simply because my own opinion is completely worthless without any proof.
In any case, the traditional bishops who claim jurisdiction (and this is the absolute minority) reject the supreme jurisdiction, as they grant themselves powers they did not receive.
AT LEAST IMPLICITLY OR BY LEGAL WILL. WHERE IS IT STATED THAT EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING PONTIFF IS ALWAYS NEEDED. THIS CAN’T BE IMPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE CASE IN ANCIENT TIMES. AND THE DOCTRINE WAS NOT CONTRIDICTED IN ANCIENT TIMES. THIS POINT CANNOT BE DENIED BUT YOU WILL NOT GRANT IT. I’M AT A LOSS FOR WORDS AS TO WHY AS THE ONLY APPARENT CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT YOU PREFER THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH TO DISAPPEAR THAN TO ALLOW THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE THE FULLNESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY. YOU HAVE STRAINED A GNAT AND SWALLOWED THE CAMEL SO THAT THE CHURCH CAN DISAPEAR ALL OVER YOUR PURPORTED UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRATION OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH WE HAVE NOT DENIED. YET YOU SEEM TO DENY THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH.
I do grant it, as you will, since there is some theological controversy involved. Still, I personally believe in a more ultramontane position there.
But, implicit consent or legal will is missing in order that traditionalist bishops receive their
missio.
The conclusions have to follow the theological way of reasoning. It is not a matter of prefering anything. My own wishes cannot dictate sound theology.
I was not presently discussion where the Church and her Apostolicity may be found.
PLEASE DO NOT TEACH ME THROUGH ONE WHOSE ECCLECIASTICAL THEOLOGY WAS SKEWED. WOULD THE AUTHORS YOU QUOTE AFFIRM HIS RIGHT TO CONSECRATE BISHOPS AGAINST THE EXPRESSED WILL OF A POPE?
I was quoting Abbé Berto, not Archbishop Lefebvre, who could not receive the very notion of apostolic powers being given by Bishops, let alone against the expressed will of the Pope.
NO DOUBT. HE IS WITH US ALL DAYS EVEN TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD. WHO IS “US”? THE N.O. HERETICS PEOPLE IN THE WOODS OR THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I am not discussing this issue. I have been with the SSPX for some time, and been a sedevacantist much longer, but came back to the so called "Novus Ordo" Church in the beginning of this year.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN WE HAVE ADMITTED THIS FACT. DO YOU CALL OUR BISHOPS SCHISMATICS AND HERETICS? THEN WHY DO YOU DENY THEM ORDINARY JURISDICTION AND APOSTOLICITY?
Because they do not receive it. I do not call them schismatics and heretics by reason of their orders, under the sedevacantist premise.
THUC WAS SENT BY A VALID POPE AND HAD THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND HE HANDED IT ON. IF THE ONLY CATHOLIC BISHOPS LEFT DO NOT HAVE THE APOSTOLIC MISSION THEN WHO HAS IT?
Please prove the major, namely, that Bishops can pass on Apostolic Mission. You ask me to present a docuмent that states Apostolic Mission cannot be passed on during an Interregnum, yet you do not present one which states otherwise.
(Of course, both statements are not even needed).
DO OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS MAKE THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF SALVATION OF THE CHURCH UNCERTAIN BY ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO BE CONSECRATED TO PRESERVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EXISTENCE? AGAIN IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF A LIVING POPE. BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO GRANT THE POINT AS IT SEEMS YOU PREFER AN INVISIBLE CHURCH OR ONE COMPOSED OF HERETICS OF AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH COMPOSED OF THE ONLY VISIBLE CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN EXISTENCE.
It does not matter what I prefer.
Why does every source and every canon speak of the consent of the Pope, if it is not needed in practice? Maybe the Utrecht schismatics are not schismatics after all, as they also never had the expressed consent of a living Pope (polemically speaking).
SO YOU DO NOT ONLY DENY US ORDINARY JURISDICTION BUT EVEN EPIKEIA. AND YOU CLAIM TO BE ARGUING FROM THE SV PERSPECTIVE. HERE YOU DISAGREE WITH ALL OF US ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. I GUESS YOU CAN START ANOTHER THREAD WITH THAT ONE.
I do not deny Epikeia if it means that vagrant bishops can be ordained under the SV premise.
YOU CALL US THE “RESISTANCE”. THE RESISTANCE TO WHAT? THE CATHOLIC FAITH? A VALID POPE? WHO DO WE RESIST?
Traditionalists often call themselves resisting, meaning, against Modernism (or the "New Church").
In any case, the core of my argumentation is as follows:
The only efficient cause (causa efficiens) to effect formal Apostolicity is not the consecrating Bishop (causa efficiens materialis) but the Supreme Pastor (causa efficiens formalis).
The formal efficient cause is lacking, even though the material efficient cause if available. It cannot be dispensed with.
Topic: Apostolic Church Not Where She Appears To Be? (Read 4705 times)