It was a good article.

But the fact is that sometimes what appears contradictory at first glance in Magisterial teachings over the centuries may upon deeper reflection be seen not to be so, but the same principle applied to different circuмstances.

An example of this is Church teaching on usury. In the common understanding, lending money at interest, was itself held to be unjust. But Church teaching as such was more nuanced and made certain distinctions. Finally, in resolving the question that had arisen, the Fifth Lateran Council decreed, "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk." a definition which now precludes most modern forms

Likewise, the same is true of Church teaching on religious liberty. Pope Pius XII who believed in the Social reign of Christ the King Himself held to a form of religious liberty, not that error has any rights, but that not impeding it directly with civil legislation was justifiable under certain conditions. Of course, nothing in this detracts from the fact that the State ought to remain a confessionally Catholic State.

In his address to Italian Catholic jurors, "Ci Riesce", Pope Pius XII said,

Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church. To omit here other Scriptural texts which are adduced in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of the cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in the field of the world together with the good seed in view of the harvest (cf. <Matt.> 13:24-30). The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some circuмstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.

Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

The same holds true for other issues. The most important thing, really, is that since the Council itself stated it intended to define nothing new whatsoever, it can pretty much be ignored by those who know their Faith.

Nishant, Ci riesce doesn't support Dignatatus Humanae:

The Holy Father spoke of "tolerance" and of "impeding." The concept of "tolerance" actually presupposes that of "evils," innate in the thing that is tolerated or is not impeded. Such is the teaching of St. Augustine: "Tolerantia quae dicitur ... non est nisi in malis" (Enarrat. in Ps. 31. MPL, 36 :271).

Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively bas no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Error has no rights, and man’s dignity is in true liberty.

Once again, the crux of the matter is how one understands the nature of the magisterium.  He gets it wrong and thus sees only one possibility, just like the Catholic who believes he must accept VII in toto.

No he doesn't. His letter is crystal clear in theology and logic. He even uses the Vatican II "Popes" and theologians to back his assertions. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

I have great respect for the SSPX and use them to get the sacraments. But the one thing that's always puzzled me is why they can't see the obvious. I used to like and hold their position because it was more "comforting". But the more I read and the more I observed I realized the position is untenable.

John XXIIII was most assuredly a freemason. Masons themselves as well as Turkish guards testify to this. He refused to publish the Third Secret just as all of his successors have followed. Cardinal Siri was elected Pope. Even Malichi Martin attests to this in Keys of His Blood. These assertions are 95% probable and accurate from numerous sources. The apostacy of the last 50 years also point to these assertions being true. Even Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the possibility and said so on numerous occasions but for whatever reasosns could not make a definitive statement. It becomes more obvious, to me anyway, by the day that the last Vicar of Christ was His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

Whether there is a secret successor of Siri floating around under ground or not will be found out in God's good time. In the mean time I hope for the day when Peter and Paul will come down from heaven, preach in the whole world and the light will shine on the cardinal who is to become the Roman Pontiff. If indeed those prophecies are true? Of course this is after the horrible wars and revolutions where, "half the world, deep drenched in blood, will die." And as Our Lady said, "The living will envy the dead."

Quote from: Caminus

Once again, the crux of the matter is how one understands the nature of the magisterium.  He gets it wrong and thus sees only one possibility, just like the Catholic who believes he must accept VII in toto.

No he doesn't. His letter is crystal clear in theology and logic. He even uses the Vatican II "Popes" and theologians to back his assertions. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

I have great respect for the SSPX and use them to get the sacraments. But the one thing that's always puzzled me is why they can't see the obvious. I used to like and hold their position because it was more "comforting". But the more I read and the more I observed I realized the position is untenable.

John XXIIII was most assuredly a freemason. Masons themselves as well as Turkish guards testify to this. He refused to publish the Third Secret just as all of his successors have followed. Cardinal Siri was elected Pope. Even Malichi Martin attests to this in Keys of His Blood. These assertions are 95% probable and accurate from numerous sources. The apostacy of the last 50 years also point to these assertions being true. Even Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the possibility and said so on numerous occasions but for whatever reasosns could not make a definitive statement. It becomes more obvious, to me anyway, by the day that the last Vicar of Christ was His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

Whether there is a secret successor of Siri floating around under ground or not will be found out in God's good time. In the mean time I hope for the day when Peter and Paul will come down from heaven, preach in the whole world and the light will shine on the cardinal who is to become the Roman Pontiff. If indeed those prophecies are true? Of course this is after the horrible wars and revolutions where, "half the world, deep drenched in blood, will die." And as Our Lady said, "The living will envy the dead."

Yes, he does.  He misunderstands the nature of the universal ordinary magisterium.  His article may be internally coherent and logical, but since he labors under a false definition, and therefor puts forth a false dichotomy, he comes to a false conclusion.  But considering what kind of "evidence" compels your intellect to assent to any given proposition, e.g. John XXIII was a freemason, I'm not sure your opinion holds much water.  

Quote from: Caminus

Once again, the crux of the matter is how one understands the nature of the magisterium.  He gets it wrong and thus sees only one possibility, just like the Catholic who believes he must accept VII in toto.

What is your argument against sedevacantism? I am interested in hearing it.

Well, I just pose questions, test premises and exhort caution and reserve.  I find that the opinion is untenable.  For example, many SV's don't seem to understand that their opinion indirectly destroys the essence of the Church by implicitly denying that ordinary jurisdiction is an essential characteristic of the Church itself; those that recognize this problem try to offer a solution, but it is wanting.

You may want to review this thread, among many that I've started regarding sedevacantism.  

Caminus said:  

Those that recognize this problem try to offer a solution, but it is wanting.

John Lane recognized it, but when he was questioned by someone for his proof, he had none.  Instead of giving an answer, he pulled rank and shut the guy down, which is one of his bad habits.  Thereby inadvertently opening the door for people like you to come around sowing doubt.  

Let it be noted, however, that John Lane never let this question -- which for him is a problem, but not for me -- shake his belief in sedevacantism.  He just referred back to the mystery of the times and that as long as a Pius XII bishop exists somewhere, the Church still lives.  I find this unconvincing myself, it seems far more likely to me that ordinary jurisdiction is simply not an essential feature of apostolicity.  

Another one who "recognizes this problem" so to speak is SJB, who is probably the least effective apologist for sedevacantism on Earth.  He spends more time attacking Bp. Dolan for refusing the sacraments to those who go to the una cuм, than he does defending sedevacantism.  Not many other people I know seem to be concerned except that small clutch of Bellarmine Forums people.

This may be of interest:

(The following is taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1949, pages 337-342, published by the Catholic University of America Press. This is an exact reproduction of the text, and any emphasis in the text is from the original.)

Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See

One of the most important contributions to sacred theology in recent years is to be found in the Holy Father’s teaching about the immediate source of episcopal jurisdiction within the Catholic Church. In his great encyclical letter Mystici corporis, issued June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII spoke of the ordinary power of jurisdiction of the other Catholic bishops as something “bestowed upon them immediately” by the Sovereign Pontiff. (1) More than a year before the publication of the Mystici corporis the Holy Father brought out the same truth in his pastoral allocution to the parish priests and the Lenten preachers of Rome. In this address he taught that the Vicar of Christ on earth is the one from whom all other pastors in the Catholic Church “receive immediately their jurisdiction and their mission.” (2)

In the latest edition of his classic work, Institutiones juris publici ecclesiastici, Msgr. Alfredo Ottaviani declares that this teaching, which was previously considered as probabilior or even as communis, must now be held as entirely certain by reason of what Pope Pius XII has said. (3) The thesis which must be accepted and taught as certain is an extremely valuable element in the Christian teaching about the nature of the true Church. Denial or even neglect of this thesis will inevitably prevent anything like an accurate like an accurate and adequate theological understanding of Our Lord’s function as the Head of the Church and of the visible unity of the kingdom of God on earth. Thus, in giving this doctrine the status of a definitely certain statement, the Holy Father has greatly benefited the work of sacred theology.

The thesis that bishops derive their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Sovereign Pontiff is by no means a new teaching. In his brief Super soliditate, issued, Nov. 28, 1786, and directed against the teachings of the canonist Joseph Valentine Eybel, Pope Pius VI bitterly censured Eybel for that writer’s insolent attacks on the men who taught that the Roman Pontiff is the one “from whom the bishops themselves derive their authority.” (4) Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis cognitum, dated June 29, 1896, brought out a fundamental point in this teaching when he restated, with reference to those powers which the other rulers of the Church hold in common with St. Peter, the teaching of Pope St. Leo I that whatever God had given to these others He had given through the Prince of the Apostles. (5)

That teaching had been enunciated explicitly in a communication of the Roman Church by Pope St. Innocent I, in his letter to the African bishops, issued Jan. 27, 417. This great Pontiff stated that “the episcopate itself and all the power of this name” come from St. Peter. (6) The doctrine propounded by Pope St. Innocent I was quite familiar to the African hierarchy. It had been developed and taught by the predecessors of the men to whom he wrote, in the first systemic and extensive explanation of the episcopacy within the Catholic Church. Towards the middle of the third century St. Cyprian, the Martyr-Bishop of Carthage, had elaborated his teaching on the function of St. Peter and of his cathedra as the basis of the Church’s unity. (7) St. Optatus, the Bishop of Milevis and an outstanding defender of the Church against the attacks of the Donatists had written, around the year 370, that Peter’s cathedra was the one See in which “unity is to be maintained by all,” (8) and that, after his fall, Peter had “alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which were to be handed over also (communicandas) to the others.” (9)

During the last years of the fourth century Pope St. Siricius had asserted the Petrine origin of the episcopate in his letter, cuм in unum, when he designated the Prince of the Apostles as the one “From whom both the Apostolate and the episcopate in Christ derived their origin.” (10) He introduced this concept into his writing as something with which those to whom his epistle was addressed were perfectly familiar. It was and it remained the traditional and common teaching of the Catholic Church.

The thesis that bishops derive their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontiff rather than immediately from Our Lord Himself had had a long and tremendously interesting history in the field of scholastic theology. St. Thomas Aquinas propounded it in his writings, without, however, dealing with it at any great length. (11) Two other outstanding mediaeval scholastics, Richard of Middleton (12) and Durandus, (13) followed his example. The outstanding pre-Tridentine theological treatise on the Church or Christ, the Summa de ecclesia of the Cardinal John de Turrecremata, went into the matter in minute detail. (14) Turrecremata elaborated most of the arguments which later theologians employed to demonstrate the thesis. Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, contributed much to the development of the teaching in the period immediately preceding the Council of Trent. (15)

During the Council of Trent, the thesis was debated by the Fathers themselves. (16) By far the strongest presentation of the doctrine lately set forth by Pope Pius XII was made in the Council of Trent by the great Jesuit theologian, James Laynez. (17) In many ways Laynez’ quaestiones, De origine jurisdictionis episcoporum and De modo quo jurisdictio a summo pontifice in episcopos derivatur, remain in the best sources of theological information on the relations of the other bishops in the Catholic Church to the Roman Pontiff to this day.

During the century following the Council of Trent, three of the classical scholastic theologians wrote magnificent explanations and proofs of the thesis that episcopal authority in the Church of God is derived immediately from the Vicar of Christ on earth. St. Robert Bellarmine treated the question with his accustomed clarity and sureness, (18) using an approach somewhat different from that employed by Turrecremata and Laynez and closer to that of Cajetan. Francis Suarez dealt with the thesis in extenso in his Tractatus de legibus, and set forth certain explanations which completed the teaching of Laynez himself. (19) Francis Sylvius, in his Controversies, summarized the findings of his great predecessors in this field and gave what remains to this day probably the most effective brief presentation of the teaching in all scholastic literature. (20) During the same period a very brief but theologically sound treatment of the same subject was given by the Portugese Franciscan Francis Macedo in his De clavibus Petri. (21) Two of the leading sixteenth-century thomistic theologians, Dominic Soto, (22) and Dominic Bannez, (23) likewise included this teaching in their Commentaries.

Pope Benedict XIV included an excellent treatment of this thesis in his great work De synodo diocesana. (24) Among the more recent authorities who have dealt with the question in a more worthy manner are the two Jesuit theologians, Dominic Palmieri (25) and Cardinal Louis Billot. (26) Cardinal Joseph Hergenroether treated the topic effectively and accurately in his great work Catholic Church and Christian State. (27)

The most important opposition to the thesis, as might be expected, came from Gallican theologians. Bossuet (28) and Regnier (29) defended the Gallican cause on this question. Others, however, not infected with the Gallican virus, have opposed this teaching in times past. Noteworthy among these opponents were Francis de Victoria and Gabriel Vasquez. Victoria, outstanding theologian though he was, seems to have misconstrued the question at issue, and to have imagined that in some way the traditional teaching involved the implication that all bishops had been placed in their sees by appointment from Rome. (30) Vasquez, on the other hand, was attracted by a now outworn theory that episcopal jurisdiction was absolutely inseparable from the episcopal character, and that the Holy Father’s authority over his fellow bishops in the Church of Christ is to be explained by his power of removing or altering the material or subjects over which this jurisdiction is to be exercised. (31)

The teaching of Pope Pius XII on the origin of the episcopal jurisdiction is not a claim that St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See have always appointed directly every other bishop within the Church of Jesus Christ. It does mean, however, that every other bishop who is the ordinary of a diocese holds his position by the consent and at least the tacit approval of the Holy See. Furthermore, it means that the Bishop of Rome can, according to the divine constitution of the Church itself, remove particular cases from the jurisdiction of the bishops and transfer them to his own jurisdiction. Finally it signifies that any bishop not in union with the Holy Father has no authority over the faithful.

This teaching in no way involves a denial of the fact that the Catholic Church is essentially hierarchical as well as monarchical in its construction. It does not conflict with the truth that the residential bishops have ordinary jurisdiction, rather than merely delegated jurisdiction, in their own Churches. Actually it is a certainly true explanation of the origin of that ordinary jurisdiction in the consecrated men who rule the individual communities of the faithful as successors of the apostles and as subjects of the head of the apostolic college. It means that the power of jurisdiction of these men comes to them from Our Lord, but through His Vicar on earth, in whom alone the Church finds its visible center of unity in this world.

Joseph Clifford Fenton

The Catholic University of America
Washington D.C.

1. Cf. the NCWC edition, n. 42.
2. Cf. Osservatore Romano, Feb. 18, 1942.
3. Cf. Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, 3rd edition (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1948), I, 413.
4. Cf. DB, 1500.
5. Cf. Codicis iuris canonici fontes, edited by Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), III, 489 f. The statement of Pope St. Leo I is to be found his fourth sermon, that on the second anniversary of his elevation to the papal office.
6. DB, 100.
7. Cf. Adhemar D’Ales, La theologie de Saint Cyprien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1922), pp. 130 ff.
8. Cf. Libri sex contra Parmenianum Donatistam, II, 2.
9. Cf. ibid., VII, 3.
10. Cf. Ep.V.
11. St. Thomas taught in his Summa contra gentiles, Lib, cap. 76, that, to conserve the unity of the Church, the power of the keys must be passed on, through Peter, to the other pastors of the Church. Subsequent writers also appealed to his teaching in the Summa theologica, in IIa-IIae, q. 39, art. 3, in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter the Lombard, IV, dist. 20, art. 4, and in his Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in cap. 16, n. 2, in support of the thesis that bishops derive their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Sovereign Pontiff.
12. Cf. Richard’s Commentary on the Sentences, Lib. IV, dist. 24.
13. Cf. D. Durandi a Sancto Porciano Ord. Praed. et Meldensis Episcopi in Petri Lombardi sententias theologicas libri IIII (Venice, 1586), Lib. IV, dist. 20, q. 5, n. 5, p. 354.
14. Cf. Summa de ecclesia (Venice, 1561), Lib. II, chapters 54-64, pp. 169-188. Turrecremata’s thesis is identical with that set forth by Pope Pius XII, although his terminology is different. The Holy Father speaks of the bishops receiving their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Holy See, i.e., from Our Lord through the Sovereign Pontiff, Turrecremata, on the other hand, speaks of the bishops as receiving their power of jurisdiction mediately or immediately from the Holy Father, i.e., from him directly or from another empowered to act in his name.
15. Cf. Cajetan’s De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et concilii, cap. 3, in Fr. Vincent Pollet’s edition of his Scripta theologica (Rome: The Angelicuм, 1935), I, 26f.
16. Cf. Sforza Pallavicini Histoire du concile de Trente (Montrouge: Migne, 1844), Lib. XVIII, chapters 14ff; Lib. XXI, chapters 11 and 13, II, 1347ff; III, 363ff; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1907ff.), IX, 747ff.; 776ff.
17. In Hartmann Grisar’s edition of Laynez’ Disputationes Tridentinae (Innsbruck, 1886), I, 97-318.
18. Cf. De Romano Pontifice, Lib. IV, chapters 24 and 25.
19. Cf. Lib. IV, cap. 4, in Migne’s IV, cap. 4, in Migne’s Theologicae cursus completes (MTCC) XII, 596 ff. Suarez touches upon this matter in his treatise, De fide, tract. X, section 1. Pontifice in his Opus de triplici virtute theologica, De fide, tract. X, section 1.
20. Cf. Lib. IV, q. 2, art. 5, in the Opera omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 302 ff.
21. Cf. De clavibus Petri (Rome, 1560), Lib. I, cap. 3, pp. 36 ff.
22. Cf. In quartam sententiarum (Venice, 1569), dist. 20, q. 1, art. 2, conclusion 4, I, 991.
23. Cf. Scholastica commentaria in secundam secundae Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae (Venice, 1587), in q. 1, art. 10, dub. 5, concl. 5, columns 497 ff.
24. Cf. In Lib. I, cap. 4, n. 2 ff., in MTCC, XXV, 816 ff.
25. Cf. Tractatus de Romano Pontifice (Rome, 1878), 373 ff.
26. Cf. Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: The Gregorian University, 1927) I, 563 ff.
27. Cf. Catholic Church and Christian State (London, 1876), I, 168 ff.
28. Cf. Defensio declarationis cleri Gallicani, Lib. VIII, chapters 11-15, in the Oeuvres completes (Paris, 1828), XLII, 182-202.
29. Cf. Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, pars. II, sect. 1, in MTCC, IV, 1043 ff.
30. Cf. Relectiones undecim, in Rel. II, De potestate ecclesiae, (Salamanca, 1565), pp. 63 ff.
31. Cf. In primam secundae Sancti Thomae (Lyons, 1631), II, 31.