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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism  (Read 2990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TKGS

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2021, 10:43:03 AM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 24, 2021, 09:53:34 AM
From my understanding, if that were the case, then an interregnum of any length would prevent there being supplied jurisdiction. The ecclesiological structure in place would be that coming from the reign of Pius XII and those traditionally-ordained bishops following. It is not an argument for a spiritual Church like the Protestants, as valid bishops still exist, meaning there is a valid apostolic ecclesiastical structure, despite the absence of a head. Therefore, supplied jurisdiction exists despite there being a false, invalid hierarchy because there are still valid Catholic bishops and therefore the visible body of the Church still persists.
Yet, when there was a three year interregnum when the conclave could not (or would not) elect a pope, 21 new bishops were consecrated due to the deaths of the predecessors, confessions continued to be heard world wide, and no one considered there to be any theological problem with jurisdiction for the entire period of interregnum.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2021, 10:48:28 AM »
Quote from: TKGS on July 24, 2021, 10:43:03 AM
Yet, when there was a three year interregnum when the conclave could not (or would not) elect a pope, 21 new bishops were consecrated due to the deaths of the predecessors, confessions continued to be heard world wide, and no one considered there to be any theological problem with jurisdiction for the entire period of interregnum.
And we could add, further, the 40 year period where there were 3 papal claimants during the Western schism, where bishops were still consecrated under each of these popes, again, with no theological issues with jurisdiction.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2021, 11:27:26 AM »
I just listened to the first 15 minutes.  I don't mind Father's presentation.  He repeatedly states that this is his opinion.  Rational discussions along these lines are welcome, and they can be constructive.  What I can't stand is where there's a a priori contempt for sedevacantism that colors the discussion.  Father appears to have a great deal of humility.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2021, 11:49:11 AM »
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.
Logged

Offline TKGS

Re: New SSPX Analysis of Sedevacantism
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2021, 01:07:05 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2021, 11:49:11 AM
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.
So...he will fit right in with the Conciliar sect?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
« previous next »