Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Ordinary Jurisdiction  (Read 8060 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8480
  • Reputation: +1089/-822
  • Gender: Male
Ordinary Jurisdiction
« on: September 06, 2012, 05:12:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought I would share some questions I had for Griff regarding his belief that our only Catholic Bishops are indeed Apostolic and therefore have ordinary jurisdiction.  I asked if you are correct why don't the traditional Bishops realize it or more precisely:

    > People will argue that if this is true why don’t the successors realize it.
    Perhaps they do, but prefer to remain silent about it.  At the very least, I think they have to interiorly sense that they indeed have more authority than they publicly own up to, else much of what they do would be difficult to impossible to justify or explain, such as establishing religious orders and seminaries, blessing altars, consecrating sacred oils, confirming Catholics (Sacrament of Confirmation), continuing the episcopal succession, and processing annulment cases.
     
    I think there is a concern that they would not want to be seen as “tooting their own horn” too loudly, at least until the apostolic nature and validity of their authority becomes much better known and widely recognized.  So long as it is not well known or recognized, any attempt to declare it formally and publicly runs a considerable risk of causing them to be seen, though obviously falsely, as if they were arrogating this to themselves, though in fact their authority really came from Christ through His Church.
     
    There may also be a matter of being that, until they have a better idea of what exactly their authority consists of and what prerogatives it bestows (or doesn’t), they may prefer to tread very carefully and slowly, testing the waters of exercising authority in one small area after another to see if it “carries” as it ought, demonstrating God’s own backing.
     
    The key thing here is that none of them have ever made any official declaration, one way or the other regarding the source of their authority being more than that of mere epikaea or ecclesia supplet, informal “off the cuff” remarks one way or the other notwithstanding.  One cannot validly conclude from this silence on their part that they are wholly ignorant of at least the possibility, or even probability, of their possessing more authority than those “exceptions” can provide, but rather point to those exceptions as something that “at the very least,” they obviously would have to indeed possess, should nothing greater be found, for the Church to have any presence today, or any future in the ages to come.
     
    > Are we to assume that a layperson like Griff knows more than them?
     
    As to knowing more, I rather doubt it, but who can say?  I am sure that there are many things they know that I do not, but conversely I also believe there are or may be at least some things that I know and that they do not.  Does “a layperson like Griff” KNOW more than them, particularly about the issues relevant to their authority?  I have no idea.  But I think we can all safely agree that “a layperson like Griff” SAYS more than them.
     
    > Could you picture a valid Pope being elected and condemning all the orthodox Bishops for consecrating and being consecrated bishops?  That sounds ridiculous doesn’t it.

    Yes it does sound ridiculous, all the more so that unless he somehow comes along in the next 20 years or so, then to be consecrated an actual “bishop” of Rome he would have to derive his orders either from our traditional bishops, or else from some historically schismatic line.  Short of turning to the schismatic East Orthodox or Old Catholics of Utrecht, he would in effect have to condemn his own episcopal lineage (the others already having been condemned, by name, by the Church).  How can that differ from the wickedness of a child that kills his own parents, except only to be all the more vastly evil still?
     
    > Do you think a new Pope will clarify the jurisdiction issue?  Or maybe even the conclave issue should we get into a situation like this again?

    Assuming that “the end is not yet,” that we still have many centuries of Church history yet to unfold before us, and that therefore the current crisis must one day be resolves as have all previous crises, the circumstance of our current situation will no doubt provide a great many precedents that will prove almost directly most useful for that fateful “final age” leading up to the return of Christ and during the actual presence of the ultimate Antichrist of Biblical prophecy.  Once there is a pope and better times truly beginning in the Church, it would most gravely behoove him to select and appoint the most wise and erudite theologians and experts to draft of a set of protocols or procedures to follow in the event of such a catastrophic fall as was brought about by Vatican II.  This would not only clarify the nature of the Church’s jurisdiction in such an extended popeless period as ours, but also lay down what it takes to convene a conclave if all cardinals either perish or fall into heresy.  It is doctrine that a pope (truly pope and as such) cannot err in matters of faith or morals.  And it is also doctrine that at all times at least some bishops must be sufficiently orthodox (and valid and lawfully appointed, etc.) in order to sustain the apostolicity of the Church.  But recent history has demonstrated (proof by example) that no such promise attaches to the college of cardinals, nor to any other specifically ecclesiastically created rank.  One cannot gather together all the cardinals, or all the archbishops, or all the Legates, or all the Nuncios, or all the priestly Monsignors, or all the population of the (local) Diocese of Rome, and say of this group “not all can fall into error at once,” for indeed “all” of any such community can, as has been seen.  Only of the total community of all bishops can it be said of them as a group, “not all can fall into error at once.”  Whatever protocols or procedures as may be generated will have to take this fact into account.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1929/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #1 on: September 09, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    I thought I would share some questions I had for Griff regarding his belief that our only Catholic Bishops are indeed Apostolic and therefore have ordinary jurisdiction.  I asked if you are correct why don't the traditional Bishops realize it or more precisely:

    > People will argue that if this is true why don’t the successors realize it.
    Perhaps they do, but prefer to remain silent about it.  At the very least, I think they have to interiorly sense that they indeed have more authority than they publicly own up to, else much of what they do would be difficult to impossible to justify or explain, such as establishing religious orders and seminaries, blessing altars, consecrating sacred oils, confirming Catholics (Sacrament of Confirmation), continuing the episcopal succession, and processing annulment cases.
     
    I think there is a concern that they would not want to be seen as “tooting their own horn” too loudly, at least until the apostolic nature and validity of their authority becomes much better known and widely recognized.  So long as it is not well known or recognized, any attempt to declare it formally and publicly runs a considerable risk of causing them to be seen, though obviously falsely, as if they were arrogating this to themselves, though in fact their authority really came from Christ through His Church.
     
    There may also be a matter of being that, until they have a better idea of what exactly their authority consists of and what prerogatives it bestows (or doesn’t), they may prefer to tread very carefully and slowly, testing the waters of exercising authority in one small area after another to see if it “carries” as it ought, demonstrating God’s own backing.
     
    The key thing here is that none of them have ever made any official declaration, one way or the other regarding the source of their authority being more than that of mere epikaea or ecclesia supplet, informal “off the cuff” remarks one way or the other notwithstanding.  One cannot validly conclude from this silence on their part that they are wholly ignorant of at least the possibility, or even probability, of their possessing more authority than those “exceptions” can provide, but rather point to those exceptions as something that “at the very least,” they obviously would have to indeed possess, should nothing greater be found, for the Church to have any presence today, or any future in the ages to come.
     
    > Are we to assume that a layperson like Griff knows more than them?
     
    As to knowing more, I rather doubt it, but who can say?  I am sure that there are many things they know that I do not, but conversely I also believe there are or may be at least some things that I know and that they do not.  Does “a layperson like Griff” KNOW more than them, particularly about the issues relevant to their authority?  I have no idea.  But I think we can all safely agree that “a layperson like Griff” SAYS more than them.
     
    > Could you picture a valid Pope being elected and condemning all the orthodox Bishops for consecrating and being consecrated bishops?  That sounds ridiculous doesn’t it.

    Yes it does sound ridiculous, all the more so that unless he somehow comes along in the next 20 years or so, then to be consecrated an actual “bishop” of Rome he would have to derive his orders either from our traditional bishops, or else from some historically schismatic line.  Short of turning to the schismatic East Orthodox or Old Catholics of Utrecht, he would in effect have to condemn his own episcopal lineage (the others already having been condemned, by name, by the Church).  How can that differ from the wickedness of a child that kills his own parents, except only to be all the more vastly evil still?
     
    > Do you think a new Pope will clarify the jurisdiction issue?  Or maybe even the conclave issue should we get into a situation like this again?

    Assuming that “the end is not yet,” that we still have many centuries of Church history yet to unfold before us, and that therefore the current crisis must one day be resolves as have all previous crises, the circumstance of our current situation will no doubt provide a great many precedents that will prove almost directly most useful for that fateful “final age” leading up to the return of Christ and during the actual presence of the ultimate Antichrist of Biblical prophecy.  Once there is a pope and better times truly beginning in the Church, it would most gravely behoove him to select and appoint the most wise and erudite theologians and experts to draft of a set of protocols or procedures to follow in the event of such a catastrophic fall as was brought about by Vatican II.  This would not only clarify the nature of the Church’s jurisdiction in such an extended popeless period as ours, but also lay down what it takes to convene a conclave if all cardinals either perish or fall into heresy.  It is doctrine that a pope (truly pope and as such) cannot err in matters of faith or morals.  And it is also doctrine that at all times at least some bishops must be sufficiently orthodox (and valid and lawfully appointed, etc.) in order to sustain the apostolicity of the Church.  But recent history has demonstrated (proof by example) that no such promise attaches to the college of cardinals, nor to any other specifically ecclesiastically created rank.  One cannot gather together all the cardinals, or all the archbishops, or all the Legates, or all the Nuncios, or all the priestly Monsignors, or all the population of the (local) Diocese of Rome, and say of this group “not all can fall into error at once,” for indeed “all” of any such community can, as has been seen.  Only of the total community of all bishops can it be said of them as a group, “not all can fall into error at once.”  Whatever protocols or procedures as may be generated will have to take this fact into account.


    Do you ever actually read anything? This has been covered multiple times and the question was settled by Pope Pius XII. These trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4624
    • Reputation: +2597/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #2 on: September 09, 2012, 08:08:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Do you ever actually read anything? This has been covered multiple times and the question was settled by Pope Pius XII. These trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles.


    I'm sure it's been covered multiple times but how could the issue have been settled by Pope Pius XII?  

    None of this was an issue pre-Vatican II.

    Do you have links to the threads where this was discussed so I could get up to speed?

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1929/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #3 on: September 10, 2012, 07:39:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Capt McQuigg
    Quote from: SJB
    Do you ever actually read anything? This has been covered multiple times and the question was settled by Pope Pius XII. These trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles.


    I'm sure it's been covered multiple times but how could the issue have been settled by Pope Pius XII?  

    None of this was an issue pre-Vatican II.

    Do you have links to the threads where this was discussed so I could get up to speed?


    It was decided pre-Vatican II.

    Quote
    “For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

    “…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

    “ …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)

    “Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)


    Here
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4624
    • Reputation: +2597/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #4 on: September 10, 2012, 10:13:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB,

    You don't take into account anything concerning the revolution of Vatican II?

    This period of the Church is a significant time of trial not so much in the way that Christians are being harassed but that Church leaders have so clearly disregarded their duties as ministers.  

    From reading "They Have Uncrowned Him" some of the pre-sessions of Vatican II had liberal (think Atheist) Cardinals openly walking out - ABL describes this.  Well, isn't a break in protocol and such a usurpation for personal gain (because these cardinals knew they couldn't make the changes that their hearts desired if they had to follow these rules)...  It's all that book ABL wrote in 1987 (I'm rereading it for the second time)  

    Well, when you change the course for personal gain (and there really is no other way to describe it), isn't this enough of a break in form?  If sacraments have their four marks, shouldn't en ecumenical council which has the potency to do major damage to the Universal Church on a worldwide scale enough for it to be declared null and void?  (I know a future pope may do this but souls are being lost on such a massive scale.)

    SJB, Vatican II was a revolution in the church and it was an act of deception from start to finish - that's the conclusion I'm coming to and I've only been studying the issue for a short while.  Falsehoods abound and the Act of Faith prayer says that "God can neither deceive nor be deceived" so why are we always on the lookout from lies from His Church?  Well, maybe the CMRI priest who told me the conciliar church is a counterfeit church is right on.

    Where does that leave "juridiction"?  



    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1929/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #5 on: September 10, 2012, 10:25:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Capt McQuigg
    SJB,

    You don't take into account anything concerning the revolution of Vatican II?

    This period of the Church is a significant time of trial not so much in the way that Christians are being harassed but that Church leaders have so clearly disregarded their duties as ministers.  

    From reading "They Have Uncrowned Him" some of the pre-sessions of Vatican II had liberal (think Atheist) Cardinals openly walking out - ABL describes this.  Well, isn't a break in protocol and such a usurpation for personal gain (because these cardinals knew they couldn't make the changes that their hearts desired if they had to follow these rules)...  It's all that book ABL wrote in 1987 (I'm rereading it for the second time)  

    Well, when you change the course for personal gain (and there really is no other way to describe it), isn't this enough of a break in form?  If sacraments have their four marks, shouldn't en ecumenical council which has the potency to do major damage to the Universal Church on a worldwide scale enough for it to be declared null and void?  (I know a future pope may do this but souls are being lost on such a massive scale.)

    SJB, Vatican II was a revolution in the church and it was an act of deception from start to finish - that's the conclusion I'm coming to and I've only been studying the issue for a short while.  Falsehoods abound and the Act of Faith prayer says that "God can neither deceive nor be deceived" so why are we always on the lookout from lies from His Church?  Well, maybe the CMRI priest who told me the conciliar church is a counterfeit church is right on.

    Where does that leave "juridiction"?  



    What does any of this have to do with ordinary jurisdiction?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4624
    • Reputation: +2597/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #6 on: September 10, 2012, 10:26:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SBJ,

    I just reread the subject line of this thread and it's "Ordinary Jurisdiction".

    Now, having seen that, is there still "ordinary jurisdiction" where the argument can be made that the Vatican is under enemy occupation?  

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1929/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #7 on: September 10, 2012, 10:33:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Capt McQuigg
    SBJ,

    I just reread the subject line of this thread and it's "Ordinary Jurisdiction".

    Now, having seen that, is there still "ordinary jurisdiction" where the argument can be made that the Vatican is under enemy occupation?  


    You can't re-define ordinary jurisdiction because V2 happened. I'm not denying facts here, just stating what the Church has taught regarding jurisdiction and apostolic sucession.

    Quote
    “For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

    “…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

    “ …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)

    “Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #8 on: September 10, 2012, 05:13:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB said:
    Quote
    Do you ever actually read anything? This has been covered multiple times and the question was settled by Pope Pius XII. These trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles.


    And it has been proven that you can't prove that ordinary jurisdiction is required for apostolic succession, beyond one quote from an American theologian who is little-known.

    It doesn't stimulate my confidence that you are misusing quotes here, quotes that apply to ordinary times. If we are to take the Pius VI quote literally, then it means that the trad bishops are simply illegitimate, but that is not the case.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +5/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #9 on: September 10, 2012, 05:18:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See.


    This suggests that circumstances can change.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #10 on: September 10, 2012, 06:22:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Excellent point.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #11 on: September 10, 2012, 09:32:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, as translated and revised by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy in the third volume Msgr. Van Noort's series of Dogmatic Theology, Christ's Church (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957), here is the first article of the fourth Chapter of the second section of the aforementioned treatise, "The Bishops," which deals with the Bishops of the Catholic Church considered individually.

    Consult Nos. 199-201.

    In the strange ecclesiological œconomia posited by some apologists as a rash reaction to the errors of the Johannine-Pauline construct, Apostolicity and duly sanctioned Canonical missions and offices can somehow exist without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and cite historical notions (such as the tacit consent of the Apostolic See in the election and elevation of Bishops to the Episcopacy in the early Middle Ages) and even Sacred Scripture, as their Gallicanist and Jansenist predecessors have done in past ages. Consequently these same apologists err further in positing that the acephalous clerics posses ordinary jurisdiction, either habitual or delegated, and not that jurisdiction which is supplied by the Church herself in the individual instances in which the principles of epikeia would apply without exceeding the measure of prudence. This jurisdiction and this alone is all that the present day clerics of the traditionalist resistance against the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church can claim if they wish to profess themselves Catholics and eschew theological errors that are developed and vindicated in a manner analogous to how the modernists have formed and implemented their heresies in the Johannine-Pauline structures.

    The traditional clerics who either intentionally or inadvertantly allow certain lay polemicists to propagate the false notion that they possess ordinary jurisdiction are doing more harm than good by neglecting to correct these erring apologists. These Priests and Bishops are especially bound to correct these erring Catholics―whether they err in good will notwithstanding―by reason of the exegencies of fraternal charity and the duties concomitant with the moral virtue of religion, not to mention the grave obligations inexorably connected with the sacred vocation which they have undertook of their own free volition in these tumultuous times.

    The novelties of the modernists do not warrant the invention of novelties of our own making as a reaction to the crisis that presently afflicts Holy Mother Church.




















    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1361/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #12 on: September 10, 2012, 11:55:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul
    it has been proven that you can't prove that ordinary jurisdiction is required for apostolic succession


    The power of orders, or the episcopal character, is the material element in Apostolic succession. The power of jurisdiction, which can only flow from the Pope to the Bishops, is the formal element in the same. Both are required for the transmission of Apostolic succession and the continuance of Apostolicity in the Church. This is not a disputed matter.

    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-822
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #13 on: September 11, 2012, 09:18:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hobbledehoy



    From the fifth edition of the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi authored by the illustrious theologian Msgr. Van Noort, as translated and revised by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy in the third volume Msgr. Van Noort's series of Dogmatic Theology, Christ's Church (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957), here is the first article of the fourth Chapter of the second section of the aforementioned treatise, "The Bishops," which deals with the Bishops of the Catholic Church considered individually.

    Consult Nos. 199-201.

    In the strange ecclesiological œconomia posited by some apologists as a rash reaction to the errors of the Johannine-Pauline construct, Apostolicity and duly sanctioned Canonical missions and offices can somehow exist without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and cite historical notions (such as the tacit consent of the Apostolic See in the election and elevation of Bishops to the Episcopacy in the early Middle Ages) and even Sacred Scripture, as their Gallicanist and Jansenist predecessors have done in past ages. Consequently these same apologists err further in positing that the acephalous clerics posses ordinary jurisdiction, either habitual or delegated, and not that jurisdiction which is supplied by the Church herself in the individual instances in which the principles of epikeia would apply without exceeding the measure of prudence. This jurisdiction and this alone is all that the present day clerics of the traditionalist resistance against the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church can claim if they wish to profess themselves Catholics and eschew theological errors that are developed and vindicated in a manner analogous to how the modernists have formed and implemented their heresies in the Johannine-Pauline structures.

    The traditional clerics who either intentionally or inadvertantly allow certain lay polemicists to propagate the false notion that they possess ordinary jurisdiction are doing more harm than good by neglecting to correct these erring apologists. These Priests and Bishops are especially bound to correct these erring Catholics―whether they err in good will notwithstanding―by reason of the exegencies of fraternal charity and the duties concomitant with the moral virtue of religion, not to mention the grave obligations inexorably connected with the sacred vocation which they have undertook of their own free volition in these tumultuous times.

    The novelties of the modernists do not warrant the invention of novelties of our own making as a reaction to the crisis that presently afflicts Holy Mother Church.






















    This is the exact portion of the book that Griff uses to make his point.  

    It states that it is theologicaly certain that Bishops obtain ordinary jurisdiction by Divine right.  This jurisdiction is necessary for "the perfect society" which is the Church.  The possess this jurisdiction "by themselves and through themselves" as "true shepherds of the flock".  The possess this power by "divine right" because their office was not "established by the Church but by God".

    It says the power of jurisdiction of the bishops is "complete in its own kind".  It goes on to clarify that the power of jurisdiction is subordinate to the "power" of the the Supreme Pontiff.  None of us would deny that their power of jurisdiction, which they receive by Divne right is not subordinate to the power of the the Supreme Pontiff, or the office of the Papacy, when there is no actual Pope.    

    It goes on to say that they receive their jurisdiction "directly from the Supreme Pontiff".  But does that contradict all that was said before.  I think not.  I believe it is an apparrent contradiction to the unschooled.  

    The Catholic Church is Apostolic.  I am a member of the Apostolic Church.  

    I ask those who believe that our Catholic (traditional) Bishops are not Apostolic,
    where do I find the Catholic Church?

    1.  In the NO Church?

    2.  In the woods?

    3.  Somewhere else apart from number 1 and or 2?

    4.  Has the Apostolic Church been destroyed.

    I do wish someone would take the time to answer this question.  If they have already please do so.  Even if you have to do it in the following way so I'll notice.

    LOVER OF TRUTH: THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH IS . . .!!!

    I'm am sincerely trying to find out where the Apostolic Church is if not in our visible Catholic (traditional) bishops.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Ordinary Jurisdiction
    « Reply #14 on: September 11, 2012, 10:13:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It states that it is theologicaly certain that Bishops obtain ordinary jurisdiction by Divine right.  This jurisdiction is necessary for "the perfect society" which is the Church.  The possess this jurisdiction "by themselves and through themselves" as "true shepherds of the flock".  The possess this power by "divine right" because their office was not "established by the Church but by God".


    Please read carefully the following:










     
    Quote
    It goes on to say that they receive their jurisdiction "directly from the Supreme Pontiff".  But does that contradict all that was said before.  I think not.  I believe it is an apparrent contradiction to the unschooled.


    You don't understand how theologically erroneous the conclusion that Mr. Ruby derives from Msgr. Van Noort is, and how perilous the ramifications of such errors may be.

    Mr. Ruby should consult the CMRI Fathers and Mr. Lane and submit his theses to their review, if he believes that his opinions do not contradict the teachings of the theologians.

    Quote
    I ask those who believe that our Catholic (traditional) Bishops are not Apostolic, where do I find the Catholic Church?


    Again and again, it has been explained to you that it is formal Apostolicity that is in question. The acephalous clerics have material Apostolicity and licit apostolates by reason of epikeia, which is untrue for the clerics of the Oriental schismatics who have material Apostolicity but their ministries are odious by reason of the fact that they have broken communion with the Apostolic See. The clergy of the traditional resistance do not undermine the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but are in expectation of a successor of St. Peter who will crush modernism and bring about the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church. It shall be this Pope who shall confer formal Apostolicity upon the clerics, contingent upon his judgment regarding individual clerics.

    No one has the authority, however, to presume he has the capacity to usurp the authority of the Apostolic See and "anticipate" this juridical act.

    It is theologically erroneous to say that the clergy of the anti-modernist resistance are formal successors of the Apostles and that they posses ordinary jurisdiction. The principles of the Sacred Canons are still in force and the Church is indeed a perfect society, but it is now acephalous (according to the sedevacantists) and the clerics act exercise the supplied jurisdiction that is given them by the Church but which they cannot claim to posses habitually or by means of delegation.


    Quote
    I'm am sincerely trying to find out where the Apostolic Church is if not in our visible Catholic (traditional) bishops.


    You have not read carefully enough the answers given you by others such as SJB and Nishant: you have to read and understand these things carefully first before you begin asking such a question.  

    Apostolicity is one of the four notes of the Church of Christ: there is also unity, sanctity and catholicity. You must have all four notes together, or else you cannot have the Church of Christ.
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16