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

Author Topic: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism  (Read 2909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2021, 01:57:31 PM »
So...he will fit right in with the Conciliar sect?
If I understand correctly, it would seem he would be falling right into the same Collegiality error that he says the sedes are guilty of. 

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2021, 02:00:12 PM »
I watched the video.  The one new (from SSPX) element they introduced to the controversy of jurisdiction, is that the priest asserted that all SUPPLIED jurisdiction (which he acknowledged is universally granted in our time of crisis) still flows only from the ORDINARY jurisdiction possessed by the diocesan bishop, stemming from the Pope.  His next assertion is that no supplied jurisdiction can be granted by a Church in which no member has Ordinary jurisdiction _ that supplied jurisdiction derives singularly and necessarily from actual ordinary jurisdiction possessed by a suoerios in the hierarchy.   It sounded a lot like the home-aloner arguments to me, but I could be wrong on that front.  I know that some theologians state that supplied jurisdiction would come from Christ Himself in such an instance, but the SSPX priest believes this to be an erroneous opinion.
Does anyone have citations refuting his theory here?  His argument in that case does nothing to destroy sedevacantism, but rather leads one also into home-alonism and admitting a defected Church... yikes.
Good analysis.  
Makes sense they would develop a jurisdiction argument that fits their back door regularization.


Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2021, 02:10:30 PM »
I've listened to about 30 minutes of this, and I find it unpersuasive.

He makes up this distinction between jurisdiction and the "effects of jurisdiction".  Once a pope dies, these effects of jurisdiction still have to come from somewhere, but he doesn't explain where they come from in that case.

Ontologically, the effects of the jurisdiction that remain after formal jurisdiction has ceased at the death of a pope can only be material.

He's basically trying to apply some kind of "collegiality" principle that the bishops directly have jurisdiction from God and not through the pope, and that would be a grave error.

I'm a sede so obviously I don't agree with the idea that supplied jurisdiction can only come from (or through) an ordinary.  However, I don't think his idea that ordinary jurisdiction comes directly from God is incorrect.  There is the distinction between ordinary jurisdiction and delegated jurisdiction.  If all jurisdiction comes through the pope, how can it not all be delegated jurisdiction?  The appointment to a see certainly does come from (or through) the pope.  But ordinary jurisdiction does come directly from God.  But then if he is arguing that all jurisdiction comes through an ordinary how does it come directly from God?  It would be delegated if it was coming from (or through) an ordinary.  You could say it was emergency delegated jurisdiction but I don't see how you could call it supplied jurisdiction (i.e. supplied by the Church and not by some ordinary).  I didn't watch the video but it sounds like those who have watched it are coming away with self-contradictory ideas.  And of course, it is utterly absurd to say that your supplied jurisdiction is coming from (or through) an ordinary who has explicitly denied you any jurisdiction at all.  That was the case before the SSPX got some level of jurisdiction from the Novus Ordo.  If he does admit that ordinary jurisdiction comes directly from God then he would have to explain why supplied jurisdiction doesn't also come directly from God.  Supplied jurisdiction is not delegated jurisdiction.  That should be clear.

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2021, 02:18:12 PM »
I said it yesterday, the SSPX hierarchy has become deck chair arrangers on the Titanic. Sedevacantes? Sedevacantes are just the deck chairs. THE SHIP IS SINKING!!!!!!

Did you ever read what really caused the Titanic to sink?  

Essentially, J. P. Morgan, the financial backer of the White Star Line bribed the captain and some crew members to intentionally hit the iceberg to sink the ship.

It was an insurance fraud scam that went awry.

I see the SSPX leaders as taking a bribe to join the crew members of the Novus ordo Church sinking scam.

Don’t see them as dummies rearranging the deck furniture.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2021, 06:30:18 PM »
Essentially, J. P. Morgan, the financial backer of the White Star Line bribed the captain and some crew members to intentionally hit the iceberg to sink the ship.
.
I kind of doubt anyone would take a bribe of any amount to do this. The captain died on the Titanic. So did many of the crew. People don't take bribes to kill themselves or do something that will very likely kill them.