-
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 circuмstance 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 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 circuмstance 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.
-
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?
-
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.
“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 circuмstances 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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20054&min=70&num=10)
-
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 ecuмenical 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"?
-
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 ecuмenical 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?
-
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?
-
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.
“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 circuмstances 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.)
-
SJB said:
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.
-
…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 circuмstances can change.
-
Excellent point.
-
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Miscellany/Pontifices.jpg)
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.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3315.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3316.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3317.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3318.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3319.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3320.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3321.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3322.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3323.jpg)
-
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.
-
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Miscellany/Pontifices.jpg)
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.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3315.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3316.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3317.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3318.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3319.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3320.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3321.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3322.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3323.jpg)
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.
-
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:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3319.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3320.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3321.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3322.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Um, the power of jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only, as Pope Pius XII taught, from the person of the Pope, not from the empty seat. It is required, as Msgr.Journet says, that the power of the Papacy be possessed in act by someone for new manifestations of the general life of the Church in her ministers.
We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. [896]
But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented. But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. [897]
896During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “ (De Comparatione etc, cap. vi, 74)
Here are the seventh and twenty-seventh propositions of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance: “ Peter neither is nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church “; “ There is nothing whatever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure with the Church Militant “ (Denz. 633 and 653)
897See Excursus VI, on the election of the Pope.
-
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:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3319.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3320.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3321.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/SCAN3322.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
Dear Hobbledehoy,
Thank you for your patient response. I actually have not noticed the response regarding material apostolicity. But it still does not sit well with me because that is no better than what the schismatics have.
Are the tradtitional bishops One, Holy and Catholic in the proper understanding of the term?
Is there any formal Apostolicity to be found? If so where? If not, does that put us in a pretty bad state?
Is there such thing a material Oneness, Holiness and Catholicness as pertaining to the four marks of the Catholic Church. It is sad that we have to consider such things.
Many speak of us being headless, and rightfully so in a visible sense, but we do have a head who is Jesus Christ and the Triune Godhead.
These are lofty things which, as in another post of yours, we need to have a good interior life in order to have a hope to firmly grasp, properly understand with all the distinctions regarding how things play out when their is an actual Pope to look to and when there is not.
The above says they must be adopted by the "authority" of the Pope. Which again is different than saying the Church cannot continue if there is no Pope. But this was the point that Nischant was trying to make, I thought, that a long interregnum is not possible because that would mean there would be no more apostolicity. He claimed the NO bishops were valid and I suppose suggested they would be the apostolic ones. But I highly doubt, based upon my interpretation of Church teaching that there is a limit on the length of an interregnum so I am not sure I should pay close attention to all the Nischant says because we start from different premises that cannot be reconciled. Either there is either a specific length limit to interregnums or there is not. I say there is not, because that is what the Church teaches.
So perhaps Nichant has learned something, which would be that a long interregnum would not end apostolicity, or force us to look to the NO for it, as, supposing your interpretation is correct, material apostolicity would still exist in the Catholic (traditional) bishops.
But this material apostolicity among authentically Catholic (orthodox with a small "o", traditional) bishops seems novel. It applies to the schismatic Orthodox, but I have never heard it applying to authentically Catholic Bishops who are not opposed to the Papacy in the slightest.
Very Respectfully in Christ,
and His Most Holy Mother,
John
-
I thought this might be of interest. It shows the answers to such questions are not patently obvious. I am only familiar with Bishop McKenna who wrote the following as Father McKenna in 1982. Some of the others I 've heard about but do not know much about:
Letter of Fr. McKennaOctober 8, 1982Dear Fathers,I have resolved my longstanding doubt concerning the Apostolic succession in thenew bishops - the doubt occasioned by St. Robert Bellarmine's proving the necessity of papal appointment for its existence in a bishop. I could not see how epekeia itself couldsatisfy for the want of papal appointment, though clearly it can for the lack of three co-consecrators (the second element in Apostolic succession according to St. Robert'steaching). If epekeia be tantamount to presumed permission, I could not understand howone can very well - despite whatever extraordinary circuмstances - presume anappointment to an office! Permissions seemed one thing, appointments or missions another.
But it now appears to me that a presumed appointment does not really ormaterially differ from a canonical appointment. Appointment to the episcopacy on thepart of the pope amounts to permission, for consecration on the part of the one appointed.Similarly the same Apostolic See's authorization or delegation for a bishop to consecrateanother seems necessarily, under another aspect, to be permission to do so. If, therefore,epekeia amounts to presumed permission, then since the difference between presumedand explicit appointment is only a logical and not a real distinction, the necessity of papalappointment to the episcopacy seems to admit of epekeia after all. That is to say that theconditions for epekeia otherwise being present, such appointment can be legitimatelypresumed and, for being legitimate, carries with it Apostolic succession. Bellarmine'steaching on Apostolic succession does not seem to preclude the possibility of epekeia as I first believed.
What I originally said, then, about epekeia at the priests meetings sponsored bythe ORCM last Easter still holds good in my estimation in the consecrations by (orstemming from Archbishop Thuc we have not schism but epekeia. And this being avirtue, as St. Thomas shows, not to use it when called for is a sin - a mortal sin accordingto one of the Thomistic commentators Francisco Vittorio. Does not the very fact that we 5are otherwise in sight of the end of Apostolic succession no undoubtedly valid bishopsordained under the new rites in years - itself constitute a sign that epekeia is possible andcalled for in the ordaining of orthodox bishops with the traditional rite? Unless wesuppose that the world is to end (and the Church with it) with the death of the last pre-Vatican II bishop, then how else are we to suppose the Church's indefectibility? TheChurch, St. Robert says, cannot exist without bishops, but even if we suppose the epekeiaargument to be not conclusive but only "probable", as they say, it at least affords groundsfor the "probable doubt" in Canon 209, which itself occasions supplied jurisdiction. Sothe new bishops otherwise being validly ordained, they thus seem to have at least"supplied" jurisdiction from the Church and the Apostolic lineage or succession it implies.
The only practical question I see is the limits of their jurisdiction. '.,without a (orthe) pope to determine the subjects of their jurisdiction, is anyone bound to consult orobey them?' Not that I am suggesting they be ignored should not every good Catholic andwe Priests especially seek the security of obedience to a prelate? but the choice of abishop and one's subjection to him would seem to be voluntary. Maybe some of you havesome light or suggestions on the matter.
I am not presenting myself as a guide for fellow priests but only offering my ownopinions) for what it's worth. We so desperately need to communicate for the sake of unity. Indeed my hope is that if I am mistaken in my reasoning, one of you may do methe favor of setting me straight. Logic I can "live with" - only spare me vituperation:
Fraternally,Robert McKenna, O.P.P.S.
Even supposing the falsity of what I have written above, the new bishopscannot, without rash judgment, be accused of formal schism - no more than were theCatholic bishops in the time of the Arian heresy, deceived by theological subtlety, guiltyof formal heresy, as Bellarmine notes. Consider them in error if you will, but mere"material" schism has no excommunication attached to it. We should note too that what Ihave said here concerning their legitimacy or Apostolic succession has nothing to do withthe other problem of the Sede vacante.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16249660/Why-Not-Wait-for-the-Traditional-Bishops-to-Elect-a-Pope
Hobbledehoy, can you explain, why it is impossible or imprudent for us to elect a Pope? I know the Church teaches that the Church can always provide a visible head for herself, yet it seems that our clergy, while admitting this fact, say we cannot do so right now.
I have not seen the reason why we cannot do so right now though. Can you point me in the right direction?
-
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.
What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.
If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.
If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.
-
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.
What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.
If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.
If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.
I agree Telesphorus. Well put.
Here is a response from a friend to a previous objections. Hobbles gave me a respectful response. I want to make sure it is understood that my sharing this is not meant as a disrespectful response. But it does make the point.
Being left with a "material" but not formal Church or apostolicity, leaves me uneasy. I think we can disagree on our interpretation of lofty doctrines during these times and circuмstances. Though I am not sure I disagree with anything, I'm not sure what to think.
Here is that response again:
I'll put it in the next post, after just re-reading it, I should have the quote to what is being responded to.
-
This is in response as to where I can find the Apostolic Church if not with our traditional bishops. I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church. But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.
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.
Here is a reply from a friend:
No, everyone who desires to be saved has the duty, whether they realize it or not, to find the Church and join it. Even though those trapped in prisons or on desert islands may well be excused from having to connect up with the Church owing to their particular isolation, for that to be the case for all of us all around the world who are not so trapped is an admission that the Church no longer exists. Since when are all the seeking souls of all history to be obliged to “read carefully enough the answers given you by others such as SJB and Nishant” before even being permitted to ask that ever so basic and essential question?
“My family and I are hungry and we need food. Where can I find some food, or what must I do to get it?”
“Who do you think you are? How dare you ask that question? You need to be fully conversant on SJB’s and Nishant’s entire orbita dicta on the price of tea in China and coffee beans in Brazil before you can even think of having any permission to ask where or how to find food!”
---
You can tell this is not my response because I would not use the term "orbita dicta".
-
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.
What the Church must have it must have Hobbles.
If it requires bishops at all times who are not manifest heretics, it must have them.
If those bishops must have apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction, they must have it.
No you are wrong, Telesphorus: supplied jurisdiction suffices for those acts that are necessary for the welfare of the faithful during the vacancy of the Holy See. To say that formal Apostolic Succession and ordinary jurisdiction must exist because of the present day crisis greatly marginalizes the paramount importance, not to mention the very primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. To posit such a thing would be tantamount to re-structuring the Church of Christ so as to make what is happening a sort of "normalcy" -- this is not an option, because things are not supposed to be the way they are.
The errors and aberrations of the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church do not vindicate a novel ecclesiology that entails an ironic retrogression to the outdated theories of theologians who wrote before the definitive pronouncements of Pope Pius XII, as explained above by Msgr. Van Noort, or, worse, to the adoption of condemned theories of the Gallicanists and Jansenists.
The authority of the Roman Pontiff is indispensable for formal Apostolic succession and for the formal approval of the canonical delegation of ordinary jurisdiction to the Bishops whereby they may rule their respective dioceses.
Both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists err in saying that the acephalous and vagrant bishops of the anti-modernist resistance can claim formal Apostolic succession and the possession and exercise of ordinary jurisdiction, habitual or delegated. This is merely a statement of fact, and it is not a matter of dispute.
To pertinaciously adhere to such an error would essentially vindicate the anti-traditionalists who condemn all the faithful who resist the modernists of the Johannine-Pauline structures as having formed a "separate church" rather than endeavoring to keep integral and inviolate the divine constitution of the Church as Christ Himself established it.
-
I actually have not noticed the response regarding material apostolicity. But it still does not sit well with me because that is no better than what the schismatics have.
I reiterate: 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.
Are the tradtitional bishops One, Holy and Catholic in the proper understanding of the term?
Yes, of course, they are part of the Church of Christ, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. However, the conglomerate of these Bishops is not to be taken as being the only thing that alone can be categorically co-equated to and identified with the Church of Christ.
The Church supplies them the jurisdiction necessary for them to carry out the offices of their sacred state decorously and competently, whilst retraining them from arrogating to themselves authority and prerogatives that they cannot claim without the sanction of the Sovereign Pontiff.
Is there any formal Apostolicity to be found? If so where?
Yes there is, but I do not know where it is to be found. As Mr. Lane has said, "it is the great ecclesiological mystery" of our day.
At Bellarmine Forums, this issues has been thoroughly discussed:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1244
But this material apostolicity among authentically Catholic (orthodox with a small "o", traditional) bishops seems novel. It applies to the schismatic Orthodox, but I have never heard it applying to authentically Catholic Bishops who are not opposed to the Papacy in the slightest.
That is precisely the tragedy of our days. The error that ascribes to the acephalous bishops formal Apostolicity and ordinary jurisdiction makes the application of material Apostolicity to them necessary, lest the faithful lose the true notion of Apostolic succession and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is also necessitated by the attacks of the anti-traditionalist polemicist who have accused traditional Catholics of making a "Pope-less church" by having a full functioning hierarchy without a Roman Pontiff sanctioning it.
-
On Bellarmine Forums, Mr. Lane posted the following:
Theological truths.
1. All of the words and actions of Paul VI which suggested that the truth was no longer being imposed as a law, gave concrete expression to his heretical idea that the truth may only recommend itself, and must not be enforced in any way by authority. Dignitatis Humanae expressed this succinctly: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” This heresy was also taught by the Synod of Pistoia, and condemned by Pope Pius VI, in his Constitution, Auctorum fidei: “The proposition affirming, ‘that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love’; and then also, ‘that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees’; in so far as by those undefined words, ‘extends to exterior matters,’ the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline – heretical.”
And also: “In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church ‘does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments’ leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.”
2. The entire hierarchy cannot teach error. That is, the ordinary, universal magisterium, is infallible.
3. The entire hierarchy cannot cease to exist in act. Not all of the bishops can leave the Church, nor can all of them die, so as to leave none remaining.
4. The Church is indefectible. That is, she must continue to exist at every moment in time, with the same essential features she was given by our Lord when He founded her.
5. The Church is a visible unity. This unity is threefold - two external bonds, of faith and charity, and one principle of unity, her hierarchy united under the Roman Pontiff.
-
I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church.
I never said this.
I never claimed that we have merely "a materially apostolic Church" -- such a thing would be absurd, and it implies that the acephalous and vagrant clerics constitute the Ecclesia docens properly speaking, and that union with them is necessary for one to be incorporated unto the Mystical Body of Christ and be a member of the Church of Christ.
But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.
The acerbic response you cite and your reactions to what I have written tell me that apparently you missed the point which I was endeavoring to make: you have to read carefully what has been discussed and brought to your attention before you go on and ask this primal and mysterious question, to which no one can claim to have the absolute, clear answer.
The reason why I say this, is because you need to clarify the notions of Apostolicity and jurisdiction so that you may ask this great question in a more efficient and clear manner.
No one has all the answers: I certainly don't. All I can do is cite the approved theologians of the Church: sharing notes, that is all I am doing, and all I intend in doing. I am nothing, and have no authority or competence: the tomes and principles that I cite, these are not mine and have an authority of their own force.
-
Hobbledehoy,
We are getting somewhere now. I do have a bad habbit of skimming through these forums. These things that have been repeated I have not even noticed once because I have not read them.
I apologize for that.
"insisting that we have a fully functioning heiarchy without a Pope".
Hmm. Never thought about it that way much as I have never thought of a material apostolicity. It gives me pause.
I guess I am not sure what to think because there is no clear answer.
I know in my debate with Nischant on there being no proscibed lenght of interregnums and his seeming insistance that SV means the Apostolicity of the Church would be destroyed through me off.
I believe neither of us would inist that the formal apostolicity is found in the NO or the woods. But, based on your interpratation of things we have to admit we do not have the answer. That could be correct. I have no idea. But at least I am hearing objections I was not previously familiar with.
Thanks again for your patience.
I was right to bristle at the thought of no or N.O. Apostolic Bishops, or invisible apostolic Bishops. No?
-
I have since read that the response is that we still have a materially apostolic Church.
I never said this.
I never claimed that we have merely "a materially apostolic Church" -- such a thing would be absurd, and it implies that the acephalous and vagrant clerics constitute the Ecclesia docens properly speaking, and that union with them is necessary for one to be incorporated unto the Mystical Body of Christ and be a member of the Church of Christ.
But the response below still seems valid. I do not think it is meant to be disrespectful but to drive home a point, much in the same way Jerome would drive home a point against Helvidius and his teaching that our Lady was not a virgin.
The acerbic response you cite and your reactions to what I have written tell me that apparently you missed the point which I was endeavoring to make: you have to read carefully what has been discussed and brought to your attention before you go on and ask this primal and mysterious question, to which no one can claim to have the absolute, clear answer.
The reason why I say this, is because you need to clarify the notions of Apostolicity and jurisdiction so that you may ask this great question in a more efficient and clear manner.
No one has all the answers: I certainly don't. All I can do is cite the approved theologians of the Church: sharing notes, that is all I am doing, and all I intend in doing. I am nothing, and have no authority or competence: the tomes and principles that I cite, these are not mine and have an authority of their own force.
You do have some competence in my opinion.
-
My good Brothers-in-Christ,
Today I lack the leisure to respond to this exceptionally relevant thread. But as soon as I am able I will put in my "two cents."
I also can make ABSOLUTELY no pretense of infallibility and must admit at the outset that Mr. Hobbles is clearly more knowledgeable of the theological literature than the rest of us, including myself.
My effort will be a humble attempt in defense of Rochester, New York and my fellow Franciscans there. (I don't belong to their specific Franciscan community, but I am nevertheless a fellow traditional Franciscan with them.)
In most humble gratitude to our TRUE Roman Catholic Bishops in the Thuc lineage,
Brother Francis
-
My good Brothers-in-Christ,
Today I lack the leisure to respond to this exceptionally relevant thread. But as soon as I am able I will put in my "two cents."
I also can make ABSOLUTELY no pretense of infallibility and must admit at the outset that Mr. Hobbles is clearly more knowledgeable of the theological literature than the rest of us, including myself.My effort will be a humble attempt in defense of Rochester, New York and my fellow Franciscans there. (I don't belong to their specific Franciscan community, but I am nevertheless a fellow traditional Franciscan with them.)
In most humble gratitude to our TRUE Roman Catholic Bishops in the Thuc lineage,
Brother Francis
I would agree with your assessment on Hobbles. That is the impression I had when I first read his posts and the impression I still have.
So, it takes some boldness to say, it seems odd that we are not sure where to look in order to find formal apostolicity.
I look to our traditional bishops. I think that is where the Church is found. Perhaps there is a hidden valid orthodox bishop somewhere and the world will end when he dies. Saying our bishops are not apostolic in the regular sense of the word, in my opinion, makes it seem like they are not doing the right thing by existing. That they should not have been consecrated because they did not have a Pope's consent, which they supposedly must have (by intrinsic necessity?) in order to be fully functional with ordinary jurisdiction.
Van Noort said they get the fullness of their office from God and later says that they must be approved by the Roman Pontiff. An apparent contradiction to the unschooled but I do not think it is a contradiction at all. I say this as one of the unschooled, merely thinking it is not a contradiction because I do not think Van Noort would be inconsistent without being able to reconcile the apparent contradiction myself. He goes on to mention that they need to be approved by the "power" of the Roman Pontiff, and at least by "implicit will" and by "legal approval".
I do not think papal approval is as simple as having a living Pope say "I approve you". I think if they are consecrated during the time of a valid Pope and he does not condemn it, they are fully apostolic. I think when fully orthodox bishops are consecrated to perpetuate the Church, when there is no Pope they join the Catholic hierarchy which is united to the Papacy and legally approved or tacitly approved. I believe they are either Catholic Bishops or they are not. If they are Catholic Bishops, they are fully functional.
On the other hand, there is no one to reign them in, or correct or refute them, they are not infallible and the can be excessive or defective in their preaching and remonstrations.
It is a unique situation. And I fall back on this alot and have not seen it thoroughly refuted. But I believe men of good will can disagree on this issue without necessarily being proven definitively wrong. Some of Van Noort seems to back one side while other parts seem to back the other side. But we can be relatively sure that he did not mistakenly contradict himself.
We can agree that it is doctrine that the Roman Pontiff must approve the consecration, but our understanding of precisely what that could mean or can't mean in regards to implicit will and legal approval or whatever terminology is used by Van Noort can be off.
The more learned can be right about 99 things and off on one. And the guy right about 60 or 70 things can happen to be right on the one thing the intellectually superior is wrong on.
The sad state of the Church has the clergy gun shy and silent about some things because of past mistakes, and the laity sometimes looks to one another for solutions which are not a sure path to sorting through the mess.
I say this knowing that Hobbles interpretation could be 100% correct, and Griff thereby would be clearly wrong. But I have my doubts. Serious doubts about that. They are both reading the same book and have come to different conclusions. And as I said, Van Noort seems to contradict himself. So what am I to say? I can say I feel safe with my traditional bishops but supposedly may "feeling safe with them" or knowing them to be "Catholic" does not necessarily mean that they are formally apostolic.
Can I say, oh well, it does not matter anyway.
Or, should I say this is too complicated for me and I live by my sensus catholicus as I instinctively know it is best to get the sacraments from them. No one on either side of the issue, on this forum, denies it is okay to go with them.
I have thought that a "material" bishop would be one given jurisdiction before he was consecrated. But this is the unschooled speculating and perhaps saying something rediculous.
Saying that the only Catholic Bishops hold a material apostolicity "does not sit well with me". That is not backed up by anything other than a gut response. But I would like to think it is an objective reaction not colored or biased by any agenda other than a search for facts. What I find pleasing about the back and forth is that there does not seem to be animosity in it. Hobbles is being very patient with me. And I can be both stubborn and stupid and that is not false humility speaking.
I am quite self-defecating by nature. :laugh1:
-
Well, John, it's true that you and I have different perspectives on the present day, and I appreciate that you're being duly diligent in thinking over matters for yourself and consulting sources from the past and clergy or others you trust from the present, but I really don't think our disagreement on that matters so far as the traditional Catholic doctrine on Apostolicity and jurisdiction is concerned. SJB and Hobbledehoy are both sedevacantists, the CMRI is sedevacantist, and they would tell you or have told the same.
Just answer me this, will you - does jurisdiction flow to the Bishops from an empty seat or is it true that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught? If the former, that appears clearly at variance with Pope Pius XII. If the latter, you have your answer from Magisterial teaching itself.
At the time of their episcopal consecration and installation into respective dioceses, it is required there be a living Pope who possesses supreme jurisdiction in act that they may receive their particular jurisdiction as flowing through him to them. This is one of the special prerogatives of the Papacy and Catholics who defend the traditional teaching today are doing no wrong.
-
IN DEFENSE OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK:
How are we to understand the four Franciscan Bishops of the Church of Rome now seated in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico? Perhaps we can appreciate them best if we review our present situation as Roman Catholics.
Exactly what is an interregnum? One legal definition is: "Interregnum means authority exercised during a temporary vacancy of the throne or a suspension of the regular government." Please note that an interregnum is not some stunningly clever strategem to realise the secret innermost desires of the Anarchist International. An interregnum is not a disappearance of the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction nor a suspension of government nor an aboliton of the Crown. None of these things occur because of the interregnum that follows the decease of the most recent reigning Pontiff on the Chair of St. Peter in Rome.
We should understand that the essential reality of a Papal interregnum is also not merely a matter of legalistic hair-splitting. In order to better grasp its more positive meaning for us, we can study the Coat-of-Arms that has been well-established by Holy Mother Church to express this not unusual legal situation in our long and glorious history. This image has the Keys of Peter beneath an umbrella or canopy with alternating red and gold stripes, the traditional colors of the City of Rome. The purpose of this symbolic canopy is to provide protection for the People of God, as if to say to us: "Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of your Father to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)
This means that during this interregnum in Rome His grace is sufficient to us. Holy Church is left respectably widowed, but she is not left a guillotined headless corpse adrift in some Protestant-like Anarchist Utopia. And why is this uniquely extended Papal interregnum that we are now suffering happening in the first place? Because the Great Apostasy of the Apocalypse has come and we are now to watch vigilantly for His coming to us on the Clouds of Heaven to judge first the living and then the dead.
In our holy Catholic vigilance we should note the long-prophesied signs of the End Times that are at present so vividly everywhere all about us: the world-wide collapse of our planet's climate, the universal collapse of the world economy, the annihilaton of all law and order from the surface of the earth, the extension of the incomparable Reign of Terror of the Russian Revolution throughout all lands and nations, as if the entire world were now very like some Greater East Germany with some terrorist Stasi Secret Police now running amock universally everywhere. And by no means least we should note the unprecedented general collapse of Christian civilization and of the sacramental economy of Holy Mother Church!
We should have the Catholic vigilance to note that our current social conditions are decidedly neither "normal" nor "viable." Contrary to the siren songs of worldly and foolish men like Bishop Fellay, our current human environment is not just another day in the long history of Holy Mother Church.
No, not at all. Instead we are now quite inescapably and inexorably at "the End." This being the case, what exactly does this "the End" look like for us, the Children of God? Should we seriously expect Holy Mother Church now to look like she did back in the more balmy days of her youth and young maidenhood? No, we should not.
Ours are not "normal times." They are not. For those among us with eyes to see, the Two Witnesses, the Anti-Christ, the Kingdoms and Kings of Gog and Magog have all of them now very largely come and gone. While more than a few were sleeping, we are now already that "Little Flock" who are humbly following Peter the Roman into the still dim dawnlight of a better day. For the remainder of humanity, the truly abandoned ones, there can henceforth be for them only endless darkness and ruin. They have been tried in the fires of the Great Apostasy and found wanting.
But we are not they. For the many the Lord's Wrath, but for we few the Lord's Mercy! That is why we should be eternally grateful to the good Archbishop Thuc and his faithful disciple Bishop Louis Vezelis for the Great Miracle that is now before our amazed eyes in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico. To quote the holy Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Whereever the bishop is, there is the People of God; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Earlier in this thread our learned Brother-in-Christ Mr. Hobbles has used the expression "acephalous clerics" in order to deny the possibility during a Papal interregnum of episcopal ordinary jurisdiction. But this is by no means received doctrine. Many good Catholics in recent years have believed this, but many others have not. Archbishop Thuc followed the traditional belief of Holy Mother Church that the ordinary jurisdiction of Catholic bishops is the means by which the Apostolic Succession of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued down through the generations. Of course, Archbishop Thuc had also previously received the episcopal authority as Vicar Apostolic of the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long to consecrate bishops on his own personal initiative directly from the hands of and by the authority of His Holiness Pope Pius XII.
Therefore we should carefully consider the possibility that our clergy during a Papal interregnum are never "acephalous" or "headless" at all, as Mr. Hobbles seems to fear. They, and we, are all of us very much safe beneath the "umbrella" of Our Lord's Papacy and the Holy City of Eternal Rome that protects us during every Papal interregnum. And especially this longest one!
The good Archbishop Thuc consecrated Bishops Carmona, Zamora and Musey who in turn on August 24, 1982 co-consecrated His Excellency Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., as the Roman Catholic Bishop of the United States and Canada "east of the Mississippi River," as they chose to describe his new diocese. Since then Bishop Vezelis of Rochester, New York has seen fit to consecrate three new Bishops for Holy Mother Church whose activities now extend through the Americas, or those lands under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin of Guadaloupe.
No doubt I have already gone on for too long, so to sum up I can't think of a better description for our present predicament as Roman Catholics than to quote the famous words of Dorothy to her little dog Toto: "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore…"
As contemporary Catholics in the Year of Our Lord 2012, we do well to consider the wider implictions of Dorothy's wise words. No, we are "not in Kansas anymore." Perhaps we are now instead in some land much more wonderful than any Land of Oz…
Perhaps we are that Little Flock of Peter the Roman now approaching the Gates of the Millennial Kingdom. Perhaps now that the last remnants of the Satanic Russian Revolution are fading away into the Great Void, it is at last time for the meek to truly begin to inherit the earth:
"Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of thy Father to give you the Kingdom of Heaven." (Luke 12:32)
Brother Francis, Franciscan Solitary
P.S.: Please note my above essay does not pass judgement on the other Traditional Bishops of Holy Mother Church. But in my humble opinion our Bishops can only be truly responsible leaders when they exercise the normal authority of their office, and should therefore acknowledge the ordinary jurisdition inherent in their sacred office. Catholic bishops without their time-honored ordinary jurisdiction resemble the false and bizarre Protestant "Churches" far too much for comfort.
-
Well, John, it's true that you and I have different perspectives on the present day, and I appreciate that you're being duly diligent in thinking over matters for yourself and consulting sources from the past and clergy or others you trust from the present, but I really don't think our disagreement on that matters so far as the traditional Catholic doctrine on Apostolicity and jurisdiction is concerned. SJB and Hobbledehoy are both sedevacantists, the CMRI is sedevacantist, and they would tell you or have told the same.
Just answer me this, will you - does jurisdiction flow to the Bishops from an empty seat or is it true that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught? If the former, that appears clearly at variance with Pope Pius XII. If the latter, you have your answer from Magisterial teaching itself.
At the time of their episcopal consecration and installation into respective dioceses, it is required there be a living Pope who possesses supreme jurisdiction in act that they may receive their particular jurisdiction as flowing through him to them. This is one of the special prerogatives of the Papacy and Catholics who defend the traditional teaching today are doing no wrong.
I like that you said "appears" in your above quote. And that you have esteem for the Angelic Doctor. I go with what the Church teaches. I have tried to make it clear that I am not sure what the Church teaches on this subject. This is what I am trying to figure out, if such can be done to my satisfaction with no infallible hiearchy to rule on it.
I have mentioned that Van Noort "appears" to have contradicted himself and one could use him on both sides of the issue as Griff and Hobbles have done.
If someone tries to debate me on this issue with the hopes of stumping me. Too late, I'm already stumpted.
-
Well, John, it's true that you and I have different perspectives on the present day, and I appreciate that you're being duly diligent in thinking over matters for yourself and consulting sources from the past and clergy or others you trust from the present, but I really don't think our disagreement on that matters so far as the traditional Catholic doctrine on Apostolicity and jurisdiction is concerned. SJB and Hobbledehoy are both sedevacantists, the CMRI is sedevacantist, and they would tell you or have told the same.
Just answer me this, will you - does jurisdiction flow to the Bishops from an empty seat or is it true that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught? If the former, that appears clearly at variance with Pope Pius XII. If the latter, you have your answer from Magisterial teaching itself.
At the time of their episcopal consecration and installation into respective dioceses, it is required there be a living Pope who possesses supreme jurisdiction in act that they may receive their particular jurisdiction as flowing through him to them. This is one of the special prerogatives of the Papacy and Catholics who defend the traditional teaching today are doing no wrong.
I'll have plenty more to say later but let us look directly at the quote from Pius XII which you claim says "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope". Perhaps you can direct me to where he stated that, but this is what I read from Pius XII on the subject:
Finally, in his epoch-making encyclical, Mystici Corporis, Pius XII states explicitly and without any qualification that the bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the pope:
as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
Here are quotes from Van Noort that may indicate it flows from the "authority" or "mediate" will or "implicit" will or "legal" will of the Apostolic See:
To be able to do this, we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff.
Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.”
We use the phrase, “by the authority of the pope,” to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required.
So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.
The objection is raised: in ancient times the popes did not intervene in any way at all in the selection of bishops. That they did not always intervene directly and by explicit consent is granted;
That they did not intervene at all, not even mediately and by legal consent we deny.
In the absence of historical testimony, it is admittedly impossible to prove this statement [that the Popes intervened even mediately and by legal consent in ancient times but he feels he has to prove they did because of the doctrine that jurisdicition comes from the Holy See] directly.
Still, keeping in mind Catholic principles, it is fair enough to reconstruct the process somewhat as follows. The apostles and their principal aides, in accord with Peter’s consent and will, both selected the first bishops, and decreed that thereafter when sees became vacant the vacancy should be taken care of in some satisfactory way, and in a way which at the very least would not be without the intervention of the neighboring bishops.
As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter’s approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter’s authority ratified that selection implicitly.
Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways.
2. The other, and always the majority opinion, maintained that bishops received their jurisdiction not directly, but indirectly from God. [Interjection: What about Mathew 18: 18? He gave this authority to ALL the Apostles.] They receive it, in other words, through the supreme pontiff who, in establishing them as bishops, at the same time by explicit will, or at least by legal will, confers jurisdiction upon them. [Again this is said without denying the reality of the past, that bishops were consecrated without asking for or getting the Pope’s permission and these were fully functioning bishops nonetheless]. This second opinion, in the judgment of the same Benedict XIV, “seems: (a) more in harmony with reason; and (b) more in harmony with authority.”
In reference to (b); St. Optatus of Mileve says, “St. Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to confer them on others” (De schismate Donatistarum 7. 3). In these words, Optatus seems to have been considering, not the apostles [The apostles themselves, according to the more common opinion, received both their jurisdiction and their mission from Christ Himself directly (Zapalena, loc. cit., p. 105).] themselves, but their successors, the bishops. [Interjection: I believe Christ gave all the powers to bind and loose, but Peter could bind what they loose and also loose what they bind, this is also said to pertain to binding and loosing of sin in the Sacrament of Penance]
Again, during each interregnum the bishops did not lose their authority but continued to function, with all their power (apart from infallibility and the ability to form a perfect council) just as they always had. I agree that Bishops consecrated against the expressed will of a valid Pope do not have full jurisdiction. But those consecrated to keep the Church going, who submit to the Papacy and any valid Pope when he comes into existence I deny until the contrary is sufficiently proven.
But when it gets down to it, from the laities perspective, not much changes whether they have ordinary jurisdiction or not.
But if our clergy can dispassionately seek the truth and have their findings peer reviewed and then make a statement on their findings, I believe we all would be able to live with it, until a Pope comes along to make a binding decision on this topic which will no longer be relevant when we get a Pope, except should a long interregnum happen again. It will be relevant for the typical short interregnums though as some seem to indicate that there must be a living Pope in order for the bishops to have ordinary jurisdiction. This does not seem plausible to me.
-
Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways.
Again Van Noort talks about the “authority” of the “Apostolic See”. This is different than insisting on the expressed will of a living Pontiff. The “Apostolic See” is not the “Pope” but his area of jurisdiction. “Apostolic See” is not the same thing as “living Pope” but is rather a "metaphorical term" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. So more proof that we do not need the consent, even implicit, of a living Pope, but according to Van Noort, this is obtained “only in virtue of the “authority” of the Apostolic See”.
Ultimately I believe the power of jurisdiction from Christ through the Holy See, through the individual Pope when one is in existence. I believe when that Pope dies (retires, goes insane, false into schism, heresy or apostasy), the bishops still retains ordinary jurisdiction. These bishops would have to do something in order to lose it. Or the next Pope would have to restrict it or declare it null. I am not sure of a new Pope ever saying, “Hey guys, in case you didn’t realize it, you didn’t have ordinary jurisdiction during the interregnum.”
-
IN DEFENSE OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK:
How are we to understand the four Franciscan Bishops of the Church of Rome now seated in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico? Perhaps we can appreciate them best if we review our present situation as Roman Catholics.
Exactly what is an interregnum? One legal definition is: "Interregnum means authority exercised during a temporary vacancy of the throne or a suspension of the regular government." Please note that an interregnum is not some stunningly clever strategem to realise the secret innermost desires of the Anarchist International. An interregnum is not a disappearance of the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction nor a suspension of government nor an aboliton of the Crown. None of these things occur because of the interregnum that follows the decease of the most recent reigning Pontiff on the Chair of St. Peter in Rome.
We should understand that the essential reality of a Papal interregnum is also not merely a matter of legalistic hair-splitting. In order to better grasp its more positive meaning for us, we can study the Coat-of-Arms that has been well-established by Holy Mother Church to express this not unusual legal situation in our long and glorious history. This image has the Keys of Peter beneath an umbrella or canopy with alternating red and gold stripes, the traditional colors of the City of Rome. The purpose of this symbolic canopy is to provide protection for the People of God, as if to say to us: "Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of your Father to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)
This means that during this interregnum in Rome His grace is sufficient to us. Holy Church is left respectably widowed, but she is not left a guillotined headless corpse adrift in some Protestant-like Anarchist Utopia. And why is this uniquely extended Papal interregnum that we are now suffering happening in the first place? Because the Great Apostasy of the Apocalypse has come and we are now to watch vigilantly for His coming to us on the Clouds of Heaven to judge first the living and then the dead.
In our holy Catholic vigilance we should note the long-prophesied signs of the End Times that are at present so vividly everywhere all about us: the world-wide collapse of our planet's climate, the universal collapse of the world economy, the annihilaton of all law and order from the surface of the earth, the extension of the incomparable Reign of Terror of the Russian Revolution throughout all lands and nations, as if the entire world were now very like some Greater East Germany with some terrorist Stasi Secret Police now running amock universally everywhere. And by no means least we should note the unprecedented general collapse of Christian civilization and of the sacramental economy of Holy Mother Church!
We should have the Catholic vigilance to note that our current social conditions are decidedly neither "normal" nor "viable." Contrary to the siren songs of worldly and foolish men like Bishop Fellay, our current human environment is not just another day in the long history of Holy Mother Church.
No, not at all. Instead we are now quite inescapably and inexorably at "the End." This being the case, what exactly does this "the End" look like for us, the Children of God? Should we seriously expect Holy Mother Church now to look like she did back in the more balmy days of her youth and young maidenhood? No, we should not.
Ours are not "normal times." They are not. For those among us with eyes to see, the Two Witnesses, the Anti-Christ, the Kingdoms and Kings of Gog and Magog have all of them now very largely come and gone. While more than a few were sleeping, we are now already that "Little Flock" who are humbly following Peter the Roman into the still dim dawnlight of a better day. For the remainder of humanity, the truly abandoned ones, there can henceforth be for them only endless darkness and ruin. They have been tried in the fires of the Great Apostasy and found wanting.
But we are not they. For the many the Lord's Wrath, but for we few the Lord's Mercy! That is why we should be eternally grateful to the good Archbishop Thuc and his faithful disciple Bishop Louis Vezelis for the Great Miracle that is now before our amazed eyes in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico. To quote the holy Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Whereever the bishop is, there is the People of God; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Earlier in this thread our learned Brother-in-Christ Mr. Hobbles has used the expression "acephalous clerics" in order to deny the possibility during a Papal interregnum of episcopal ordinary jurisdiction. But this is by no means received doctrine. Many good Catholics in recent years have believed this, but many others have not. Archbishop Thuc followed the traditional belief of Holy Mother Church that the ordinary jurisdiction of Catholic bishops is the means by which the Apostolic Succession of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued down through the generations. Of course, Archbishop Thuc had also previously received the episcopal authority as Vicar Apostolic of the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long to consecrate bishops on his own personal initiative directly from the hands of and by the authority of His Holiness Pope Pius XII.
Therefore we should carefully consider the possibility that our clergy during a Papal interregnum are never "acephalous" or "headless" at all, as Mr. Hobbles seems to fear. They, and we, are all of us very much safe beneath the "umbrella" of Our Lord's Papacy and the Holy City of Eternal Rome that protects us during every Papal interregnum. And especially this longest one!
The good Archbishop Thuc consecrated Bishops Carmona, Zamora and Musey who in turn on August 24, 1982 co-consecrated His Excellency Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., as the Roman Catholic Bishop of the United States and Canada "east of the Mississippi River," as they chose to describe his new diocese. Since then Bishop Vezelis of Rochester, New York has seen fit to consecrate three new Bishops for Holy Mother Church whose activities now extend through the Americas, or those lands under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin of Guadaloupe.
No doubt I have already gone on for too long, so to sum up I can't think of a better description for our present predicament as Roman Catholics than to quote the famous words of Dorothy to her little dog Toto: "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore…"
As contemporary Catholics in the Year of Our Lord 2012, we do well to consider the wider implictions of Dorothy's wise words. No, we are "not in Kansas anymore." Perhaps we are now instead in some land much more wonderful than any Land of Oz…
Perhaps we are that Little Flock of Peter the Roman now approaching the Gates of the Millennial Kingdom. Perhaps now that the last remnants of the Satanic Russian Revolution are fading away into the Great Void, it is at last time for the meek to truly begin to inherit the earth:
"Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of thy Father to give you the Kingdom of Heaven." (Luke 12:32)
Brother Francis, Franciscan Solitary
P.S.: Please note my above essay does not pass judgement on the other Traditional Bishops of Holy Mother Church. But in my humble opinion our Bishops can only be truly responsible leaders when they exercise the normal authority of their office, and should therefore acknowledge the ordinary jurisdition inherent in their sacred office. Catholic bishops without their time-honored ordinary jurisdiction resemble the false and bizarre Protestant "Churches" far too much for comfort.
Thank you Brother Francis for your thoughtful (well thought out) writing and the time and effort you took to put it together. I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.
When we deny this we have to look to the woods or be satisfied with material apostolicity.
I say this not only knowing I could be wrong. But knowing I could be waaaaaaaay off. But they are my thoughts now. Thoughts which I have tried to form through Church teaching. But ultimately the only laity it affects regardless of who is right, is the stay-at-homers. But if they are acting in good conscience God gives them the necessary graces as well.
Our clergy need to unite and make a statement on the issue. This can be done if pride and ego can be smothered.
-
I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.
This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.
-
I'll have plenty more to say later but let us look directly at the quote from Pius XII which you claim says "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope". Perhaps you can direct me to where he stated that
Sure, SJB provided the quotes on the first page of this thread.
“…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)
" ...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)"
Jurisdiction is ordinary when it is attached to an office. Pope Pius XII is explicit that the ordinary power of jurisdiction is received only directly from the Pope, which shows that no Bishop can acquire the possession of an episcopal office merely by consecration by another Bishop. It is a quite grave error to think otherwise, in practice, it would be a derogation of the supreme and exclusive powers proper to the Papacy alone.
Again, during each interregnum the bishops did not lose their authority but continued to function, with all their power (apart from infallibility and the ability to form a perfect council) just as they always had.
This is not the point of contention here. Cardinal Franzelin, among many others, says plainly the jurisdiction of the Bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies. That is because jurisdiction is attached to their office which they lawfully entered with the consent of their head to become members of the episcopal college. But what is impossible for mere Bishops to do, even all together, is to install another Bishop into an office by themselves when they know there is no Pope.
That is an affront on the monarchical constitution of the Church.
I agree that Bishops consecrated against the expressed will of a valid Pope do not have full jurisdiction.
They would not have jurisdiction at all, since they never entered the office, since he who holds the Keys did not consent. The words of Christ about robbers who do not enter by the gate are applied by the Holy Father here.
But those consecrated to keep the Church going, who submit to the Papacy and any valid Pope when he comes into existence I deny until the contrary is sufficiently proven.
Well, you can keep at it if you like. But the teaching is quite clear.
-
I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.
This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.
From Pope Pius XII
as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
What am I missing?
-
I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.
This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.
From Pope Pius XII
as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
What am I missing?
"although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office"
Yes, when they have an office, they have jurisdiction. Pius XII is saying that the jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff.
One who has valid orders without an office has no jurisdiction, period.
-
So what happens to it during sede vacante?
It doesn't disappear. And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve. As it has in the past.
No sedevacantist denies that jurisdiction requires the approval of the Pope. It doesn't follow that during sede vacante jurisdiction cannot be granted, when it's necessary to be granted.
I don't see any proof at all that a bishop cannot be consecrated and granted jurisdiction during sede vacante.
-
So what happens to it during sede vacante?
It doesn't disappear. And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve. As it has in the past.
No sedevacantist denies that jurisdiction requires the approval of the Pope. It doesn't follow that during sede vacante jurisdiction cannot be granted, when it's necessary to be granted.
I don't see any proof at all that a bishop cannot be consecrated and granted jurisdiction during sede vacante.
Well, you're wrong. Jurisdiction requires an office, not just Holy Orders.
Not that it matters, but in your mind, who is it that "grants jurisdiction?"
-
Well, you're wrong.
You can't prove that it's wrong. Certainly not with that passage of Pius XII.
Jurisdiction requires an office, not just Holy Orders.
Who said otherwise?
Not that it matters, but in your mind, who is it that "grants jurisdiction?"
The Church does. In unity with its head. The absence of a head during sede vacante doesn't mean the end of jurisdiction.
These people making the survival of the Church dependent on a brief sede vacante otherwise "ordinary jurisdiction" dies out are playing a game based on misinterpretation.
Nowhere is it said that there cannot be a long sede vacante, and that jurisdiction cannot be granted during it.
-
I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.
This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.
From Pope Pius XII
as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
What am I missing?
"although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office"
Yes, when they have an office, they have jurisdiction. Pius XII is saying that the jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff.
One who has valid orders without an office has no jurisdiction, period.
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds plausible. I admit you could be right, but I don't know for sure. You 100% sure your interpretation is correct. And those most knowedgeable (apparantly in the public realm, people like you, John Lane and Hobbles) agree. It certainly seems on the face of what Van Noort and Pius XII has written that you are correct. But I truly believe we could be missing something here.
Thanks for responding. My questions are sincere. I have been guilty of not reading threads in there entirety. I have legitimately missed things. I evidently missed the whole "materially apostolic" thing.
-
This argument that you can't have new prelates with jurisdiction without a sitting Pope is a typical anti-sede argument.
Like most anti-sede arguments, it undermines the Faith by making it contingent on the fulfillment of technicalities, with specious arguments that the non-fulfillment of those technicalities is impossible.
What isn't a technicality is that the leaders of the Church must be Christian.
It is a technicality, on the other hand, to insist that in extraordinary circuмstances of a long sede vacante that no new Bishops with jurisidiction can be created. This is something that is not taught, and no one can prove that it necessarily follows from those docuмents cited.
-
And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve. As it has in the past.
Except it hasn't ever been what you want to claim:
339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?
A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule,made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.
340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.
341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.
342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.
343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.
344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?
A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.
-
And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve. As it has in the past.
Except it hasn't ever been what you want to claim:
339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?
A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule,made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.
340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.
341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.
342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.
343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.
344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?
A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.
This history just proves that the power to grant office has devolved to others in the past. If it was necessary for the power to devolve during a sede vacante then of course it would.
-
In these extraordinary times I believe Christ might grant juridiction.
Is the Apostolic See the same thing as a living Pope or is it his office?
Does the Church supplying in the case of grave necessity go for the Sacraments in the danger of death or is it for daily Mass, confirmations, building of seminaries and everything else the true Church does?
“The Church”, wherever it is, is supplying the Bishops a favor by allowing them to function as if they had ordinary jurisdiction during a perpetual state of emergency, the exception has become the fifty-year and-counting rule.
I don’t deny the possibility but it is sad if this is what we are left with.
Your interpretation of the doctrine seems to imply that our Bishops are doing what they do without permission, kind of “getting away with” performing the duties of formerly apostolic bishops when they are not actually truly apostolic.
It is kind of like insisting that water exists but that it isn’t wet. It is insisting on one truth at the expense of another. Do you see what I am saying here?
I’m neither denying the visibility of the Church in her apostolic bishops or denying that their jurisdiction needs to be, at least “implicitly”, “meadiately”, or “of legal will” flow from the Apostolic See. I’m trying to suggest that the doctrine was not “undoctrinated” when bishops were consecrated without the express consent of a Pope in the past and that the doctrine is not “undoctrinated” by saying the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence are also Apostolic. They come from approved lines. They are all that we have left. And if I understand Church teaching correctly, we have to have a visible apostolic Bishop left. The Church has to be visible and Apostolic in the true sense of the word. It can be hidden or “eclipsed” in the sense that it won’t be where the vast majority of people look, but someone has to see it.
It seems we are straining a gnat (a living pope must expressly approve of the consecrations) in order to swallow a camel (the apostolic Church is not found in the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence). I do not believe we have to accept one at the expense of the other. If you have studied the doctrine carefully you will understand that a living pope does not have to “expressly” approve of the consecrations. I believe all the intellectually honest will admit that. It is there in black and white for all to see.
I’ll remind you that I admit that I do not know who is right here. My sensus fidelium tells me I should be able to see where the Church is. If I am wrong in my understanding of Church teaching -
Then we are left with a Church that is no longer (formerly) Apostolic in a visible way.
So apparently we have to swallow a dogma (make it disappear) [the Catholic Church must be visible and (formerly) Apostolic] in order to accept the majority’s interpretation of a doctrine [A living Pope must (expressly?) approve the consecrations]. We are left with “A great mystery” that no one, Hobles, John Lane, SJB or you can explain, instead of a visible apostolic Church. The Church must visible but not in our only visible [traditional] Catholic bishops.
But I’m condemned as defending the absurd [a visible formerly apostolic Church].
But there is the alternative:
We can ignore the fact that Ratzinger is a public heretic and that the v2 leaders have bound and maintained what no valid pope can on the Church and pretend that the visible Apostolic Church is found in the invalidly consecrated heretical “bishops”.
Or in the woods somewhere.
It sounds sarcastic but I exaggerate not. Comedians make a good living by telling it as it is. If you step back and look at it, it can seem hilarious, if not for the tragic nature of the whole thing.
But those who suggest (not insist) that our Church is found in the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence are considered to be crazy or absurd.
-
This argument that you can't have new prelates with jurisdiction without a sitting Pope is a typical anti-sede argument.
Like most anti-sede arguments, it undermines the Faith by making it contingent on the fulfillment of technicalities, with specious arguments that the non-fulfillment of those technicalities is impossible.
What isn't a technicality is that the leaders of the Church must be Christian.
It is a technicality, on the other hand, to insist that in extraordinary circuмstances of a long sede vacante that no new Bishops with jurisidiction can be created. This is something that is not taught, and no one can prove that it necessarily follows from those docuмents cited.
It's far from merely a "technicality."
Anyway, what office does Trad Bp. "X" hold? You are claiming jurisdiction without an office.
-
This argument that you can't have new prelates with jurisdiction without a sitting Pope is a typical anti-sede argument.
Like most anti-sede arguments, it undermines the Faith by making it contingent on the fulfillment of technicalities, with specious arguments that the non-fulfillment of those technicalities is impossible.
What isn't a technicality is that the leaders of the Church must be Christian.
It is a technicality, on the other hand, to insist that in extraordinary circuмstances of a long sede vacante that no new Bishops with jurisidiction can be created. This is something that is not taught, and no one can prove that it necessarily follows from those docuмents cited.
It's far from merely a "technicality."
Anyway, what office does Trad Bp. "X" hold? You are claiming jurisdiction without an office.
Again I lack the competence for such discussions. But this is what I would think based upon virtually no theological train:
The successors of Thuc hold the same office that Thuc held.
-
It's far from merely a "technicality."
Oh yes it is, saying that there has to be a living Pope for jurisdiction to be granted is definitely a "technicality." Bishops have been chosen without express approval in the past. You cannot prove that jurisdiction cannot be granted during sede vacante, nor does the passage quoted pertain to the case of a long sede vacante. It pertains to the Church as it was before the sede vacante.
Anyway, what office does Trad Bp. "X" hold? You are claiming jurisdiction without an office.
It's very silly to claim the apostolic succession requires titles of sees and dioceses.
-
Your interpretation of the doctrine seems to imply that our Bishops are doing what they do without permission, kind of “getting away with” performing the duties of formerly apostolic bishops when they are not actually truly apostolic.
They sanctify by virtue of their Holy Orders. The fact is that they have no power to teach and to rule, they have no territory, and they are not Successors to the Apostles. They cannot be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
-
Your interpretation of the doctrine seems to imply that our Bishops are doing what they do without permission, kind of “getting away with” performing the duties of formerly apostolic bishops when they are not actually truly apostolic.
They sanctify by virtue of their Holy Orders. The fact is that they have no power to teach and to rule, they have no territory, and they are not Successors to the Apostles. They cannot be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
I grant that they have no territory.
-
It's far from merely a "technicality."
Oh yes it is, saying that there has to be a living Pope for jurisdiction to be granted is definitely a "technicality." Bishops have been chosen without express approval in the past. You cannot prove that jurisdiction cannot be granted during sede vacante, nor does the passage quoted pertain to the case of a long sede vacante. It pertains to the Church as it was before the sede vacante.
Anyway, what office does Trad Bp. "X" hold? You are claiming jurisdiction without an office.
It's very silly to claim the apostolic succession requires titles of sees and dioceses.
You're in the wilderness on this one Telesphorus. I've quoted the authorities and you just want to believe whatever you want.
-
SJB,
Can you do me the favor of going through the following, line by line, and refuting it (and granting any valid points if possible)?
In these extraordinary times I believe Christ might grant juridiction.
Is the Apostolic See the same thing as a living Pope or is it his office?
Does the Church supplying in the case of grave necessity go for the Sacraments in the danger of death or is it for daily Mass, confirmations, building of seminaries and everything else the true Church does?
“The Church”, wherever it is, is supplying the Bishops a favor by allowing them to function as if they had ordinary jurisdiction during a perpetual state of emergency, the exception has become the fifty-year and-counting rule.
I don’t deny the possibility but it is sad if this is what we are left with.
Your interpretation of the doctrine seems to imply that our Bishops are doing what they do without permission, kind of “getting away with” performing the duties of formerly apostolic bishops when they are not actually truly apostolic.
It is kind of like insisting that water exists but that it isn’t wet. It is insisting on one truth at the expense of another. Do you see what I am saying here?
I’m neither denying the visibility of the Church in her apostolic bishops or denying that their jurisdiction needs to be, at least “implicitly”, “meadiately”, or “of legal will” flow from the Apostolic See. I’m trying to suggest that the doctrine was not “undoctrinated” when bishops were consecrated without the express consent of a Pope in the past and that the doctrine is not “undoctrinated” by saying the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence are also Apostolic. They come from approved lines. They are all that we have left. And if I understand Church teaching correctly, we have to have a visible apostolic Bishop left. The Church has to be visible and Apostolic in the true sense of the word. It can be hidden or “eclipsed” in the sense that it won’t be where the vast majority of people look, but someone has to see it.
It seems we are straining a gnat (a living pope must expressly approve of the consecrations) in order to swallow a camel (the apostolic Church is not found in the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence). I do not believe we have to accept one at the expense of the other. If you have studied the doctrine carefully you will understand that a living pope does not have to “expressly” approve of the consecrations. I believe all the intellectually honest will admit that. It is there in black and white for all to see.
I’ll remind you that I admit that I do not know who is right here. My sensus fidelium tells me I should be able to see where the Church is. If I am wrong in my understanding of Church teaching -
Then we are left with a Church that is no longer (formerly) Apostolic in a visible way.
So apparently we have to swallow a dogma (make it disappear) [the Catholic Church must be visible and (formerly) Apostolic] in order to accept the majority’s interpretation of a doctrine [A living Pope must (expressly?) approve the consecrations]. We are left with “A great mystery” that no one, Hobles, John Lane, SJB or you can explain, instead of a visible apostolic Church. The Church must visible but not in our only visible [traditional] Catholic bishops.
But I’m condemned as defending the absurd [a visible formerly apostolic Church].
But there is the alternative:
We can ignore the fact that Ratzinger is a public heretic and that the v2 leaders have bound and maintained what no valid pope can on the Church and pretend that the visible Apostolic Church is found in the invalidly consecrated heretical “bishops”.
Or in the woods somewhere.
It sounds sarcastic but I exaggerate not. Comedians make a good living by telling it as it is. If you step back and look at it, it can seem hilarious, if not for the tragic nature of the whole thing.
But those who suggest (not insist) that our Church is found in the only visible Catholic Bishops in existence are considered to be crazy or absurd.
-
You're in the wilderness on this one Telesphorus. I've quoted the authorities and you just want to believe whatever you want.
No, you've claimed that the authorities you've quoted establish things far beyond what they say.
You have not even come close to proving that jurisdiction must eventually die out during a long sede vacante. Not even remotely.
Learn how to use logic, and proof.
That means showing explicitly that it's impossible for apostolic jurisdiction to be granted during sede vacante.
You can't, and never will be able to show it.
But it's a typical "technical" argument, based on quoting docuмents about a context that they were not addressing.
-
For all those who claim that those men who have been uncanonically consecrated bishops hold a valid office in the Church: what kind of office do they hold? Is it a Prefecture Apostolic, a Vicariate Apostolic, a Diocese or a Metropolitan? Perhaps it's an Eparchate? When were they erected/elevated, and by whose authority were they erected/elevated? What are the geographical boundaries of these uncanonical Sees, and who determined said boundaries? Where are their cathedras? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Pax Christi,
Brian
-
For all those who claim that those men who have been uncanonically consecrated bishops hold a valid office in the Church: what kind of office do they hold? Is it a Prefecture Apostolic, a Vicariate Apostolic, a Diocese or a Metropolitan? Perhaps it's an Eparchate?
Who says they have to hold such a title in an irregular situation?
When were they erected/elevated, and by whose authority were they erected/elevated? What are the geographical boundaries of these uncanonical Sees, and who determined said boundaries? Where are their cathedras? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Pax Christi,
Brian
Oh, so they don't have cathedrals. As though that were dispositive of anything!
I don't think they even need to claim they are certain themselves of the nature of the jurisdiction they hold, simply that God must provide.
-
You obviously have no clue of which you speak. Episcopal jurisdiction flows from an office. I have asked what type of office do these men hold. You cannot answer because you are ignorant of the various offices of the Church. I didn't ask where their cathedrals were, I asked where were their cathedras, which is Greek for seats. A cathedral is the church which contains the cathedra. The Holy Father's cathedra can be located in the Lateran Basilica of St. John. Hence the term ex cathedra. If these men hold valid episcopal offices, they must have a cathedra. So please, enlighten us with your vast knowledge of the nature of the episcopacy, and tell us where exactly are the seats which these men claim to hold. Tell us the boundaries of the geographical jurisdiction of said cathedras, and tell us what type of offices they are, because there is an hierarchy of offices, with a metropolitan being the highest office below the Papacy, which is the Prime See of the Church.
-
You have not even come close to proving that jurisdiction must eventually die out during a long sede vacante. Not even remotely.
Learn how to use logic, and proof.
Learn how to read and comprehend.
That means showing explicitly that it's impossible for apostolic jurisdiction to be granted during sede vacante.
No, you need to prove your assertion, which is contrary to all known authorities.
-
You obviously have no clue of which you speak.
If one were to suppose there were only a handful of bishops in the world how does having a bunch of titles, maps, and cathedrals aid in the administering of the Church.
Episcopal jurisdiction flows from an office.
Did the 12 Apostles need cathedrals and titles or not?
I have asked what type of office do these men hold.
Answer that with respect to the 12 apostles.
You cannot answer because you are ignorant of the various offices of the Church.
Wrong. There is no need to answer something that is irrelevant.
Your argument that jurisdiction requires a cathedral is ridiculous.
I didn't ask where their cathedrals were, I asked where were their cathedras, which is Greek for seats.
So now you say it's a matter of whether or not they have a special chair.
Just more pharisaic nonsense.
A cathedral is the church which contains the cathedra. The Holy Father's cathedra can be located in the Lateran Basilica of St. John. Hence the term ex cathedra.
Yes, the term has an origin. The meaning of the authority and the concept doesn't depend on a man sitting in a chair.
If these men hold a valid episcopal offices, they must have a cathedra.
To hold valid office you must have a special, official chair. That's a ridiculous argument.
So please, enlighten us with your vast knowledge of the nature of the episcopacy, and tell us where exactly are the seats which these men claim to hold. Tell us the boundaries of the geographical jurisdiction of said cathedras, and tell us what type of offices they are, because there is an hierarchy of offices, with a metropolitan being the highest office below the Papacy, which is the Prime See of the Church.
Thank Goodness the Holy Spirit provided these special chairs to the twelve apostles.
-
Learn how to read and comprehend.
You know very well I do comprehend, and you can't answer my objections. You're the one whose intelligence is lacking.
You haven't proved at that your cited texts show jurisdiction must die out in a prolonged sede vacante. In fact its impossible to prove, because the cited texts really aren't about that question. You're trying to apply texts in the wrong context. It's a specious argument.
No, you need to prove your assertion, which is contrary to all known authorities.
That's just hot air. Demonstrating a contradiction is more than just saying "look" - you have to show that jurisdiction can't be granted without a living Pope. You can't prove it, your texts have nothing to do with the question.
-
That's just hot air. Demonstrating a contradiction is more than just saying "look" - you have to show that jurisdiction can't be granted without a living Pope. You can't prove it, your texts have nothing to do with the question.
All authorities say all jurisdiction is attached to an office, and that office is granted by the authority of the pope.
-
You haven't proved at that your cited texts show jurisdiction must die out in a prolonged sede vacante. In fact its impossible to prove, because the cited texts really aren't about that question. You're trying to apply texts in the wrong context. It's a specious argument.
That's not my argument, and that's why I said you don't comprehend.
-
All authorities say all jurisdiction is attached to an office
What were the offices of the 12 Apostles? How did they have jurisdiction without offices. Did they only gain jurisdiction when Peter named them to a see?
and that office is granted by the authority of the pope.
Which in the past has devolved on others.
-
You are totally clueless. You have no comprehension of the Monarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Before St. Peter established Rome as the permanent location of his cathedra, he carried it with him. It was portable. It is a symbol of power. If these men claim to have jurisdictional authority, they must have cathedras or symbols of their power to judge and to teach. The term ex cathedra means "out of the chair". When Pope Pius XII solemnly declared the Assumption of The Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin to be de fidei, he was actually sitting on his cathedra in the Lateran Basilica of St. John when he spoke. It is the nature of the Monarchy of Our Lord's Church. Christ is the King, and He has an Heavenly Throne. His Mother is Queen, and She has a Throne. The Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ, through whom Our Lord and Saviour lives vicariously, has a Throne. The Bishops that members of the Episopal College and are considered Princes of the Church have Thrones. If you don't have a Throne, you're not a Prince. If you're not a Prince, you have no authority. The residences of the Episcopal Bishops used to be referred to as Palaces. As I stated previously, the chair, seat, throne, is a symbol of the power or authority wielded by the Episcopacy, with the Seat of Peter being the font from which this authority flows. As has been pointed out by previous posters, this authority needs an human element to delegate the authority, which is the Holy Father. You would have us believe that any validly consecrated bishop has this authority, but yet does not know or understand the type or limitation of their authority. For all you know, they might be Archbishops. Perhaps one of them is actually Pope.
-
You are totally clueless. You have no comprehension of the Monarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Before St. Peter established Rome as the permanent location of his cathedra, he carried it with him. It was portable.
So his authority came from a magic chair. And the source of this Tradition is what?
-
That's not my argument, and that's why I said you don't comprehend.
Without a Pope, no jurisdiction can be granted. This is what you are claiming. Therefore, a long enough sede vacante means the end of jurisdiction.
How can you deny that is the implication of your position?
-
That's not my argument, and that's why I said you don't comprehend.
Without a Pope, no jurisdiction can be granted. This is what you are claiming. Therefore, a long enough sede vacante means the end of jurisdiction.
How can you deny that is the implication of your position?
So now it's just an implication? The manner in which jurisdiction is granted is just a fact which must be accepted along with other facts. You are the one making the assertion that this fact necessarily ends apostolic succession. I suppose that's easier than proving your lonely theory regarding some previously unknown jurisdiction.
Again, jurisdiction is attached to an office. Accept it.
-
You are totally clueless. You have no comprehension of the Monarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Before St. Peter established Rome as the permanent location of his cathedra, he carried it with him. It was portable.
So his authority came from a magic chair. And the source of this Tradition is what?
Um, no. His authority came from Christ, the King. The chair is a physical manifestation of the abstract concept of an office. From this office flows authority to judge and teach. The chair can be destroyed, being made of matter. The office of Vicar of Christ cannot be destroyed. The Vicar of Christ, or the Chairman, appoints those who are to hold the subordinate offices or chairs, whether they be a Prefecture Apostolic or a Metropolitan. Each of these different offices have different levels of authority. A Diocesan Bishop is subordnate to his Archdiocesan Bishop. The Vicar of Christ gives the mandate for the erection/elevation of these offices. If the office holder dies, the office still exists. The only way a subordinate office can be caused to no longer exist is through the action of the holder of the Chair of Peter.
Your have taken upon yourself the appellation of Sede Vacantist, meaning vacant chair, yet you now argue that the chair is irrevelant.
-
So now it's just an implication?
So you that ordinary jurisdiction is not needed for apostolic succession?
If it is required, and the granting of jurisdiction requires a living Pontiff, then the inevitable result of a long sede vacante would be the extinction of the apostolic succession.
You said the other day that trad bishops are not in the apostolic succession.
The manner in which jurisdiction is granted is just a fact which must be accepted along with other facts.
And the fact of the matter is that it was devolved to others in the past. The other fact is that the situation of a long sede vacante is not the situation addressed in the docuмents you cite.
You are the one making the assertion that this fact necessarily ends apostolic succession.
You said trad bishops don't have apostolic succession. If there is no Pope, there is no one to grant office (according to your theory), then eventually there can be no bishops with office.
I suppose that's easier than proving your lonely theory regarding some previously unknown jurisdiction.
God provides what is necessary. Whatever form of jurisdiction is necessary, it will be provided. That's not a theory. That's a necessary conclusion. The texts you cite on jurisdiction don't pertain to a long sede vacante. They are irrelevant.
Again, jurisdiction is attached to an office. Accept it.
How an office is usually defined, it's location, it's chair, etc, is not essential. What is essential is that some bishops have jurisdiction, and are successors to the Apostles.
-
You are totally clueless. You have no comprehension of the Monarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Before St. Peter established Rome as the permanent location of his cathedra, he carried it with him. It was portable.
Um, no. His authority came from Christ, the King.
Which according to you depended on him taking a chair with him. Without which, he would not have an official office, according to you.
The chair is a physical manifestation of the abstract concept of an office.
The chair is a symbol of office. So St. Peter had an office. All the extraneous things you mentioned before about titles and chairs, etc, has nothing to do with the essence of the office.
The office of Vicar of Christ cannot be destroyed. The Vicar of Christ, or the Chairman, appoints those who are to hold the subordinate offices or chairs, whether they be a Prefecture Apostolic or a Metropolitan. Each of these different offices have different levels of authority. A Diocesan Bishop is subordnate to his Archdiocesan Bishop. The Vicar of Christ gives the mandate for the erection/elevation of these offices. If the office holder dies, the office still exists. The only way a subordinate office can be caused to no longer exist is through the action of the holder of the Chair of Peter.
The offices could all be empty though, if nothing is done to fill them. However, it was not necessary in the past for the Pope to directly control the granting of jurisdiction.
Your have taken upon yourself the appellation of Sede Vacantist, meaning vacant chair, yet you now argue that the chair is irrevelant.
That is an incredibly stupid statement. Sedevacantist means that there is no one living who is Pope. It does not mean it is impossible for jurisdiction to be granted. You and your portable chair that you claimed was necessary for office, into you turned around and said you meant "the chair" was an abstract concept of the office.
You are absolutely childish. Using symbolic literally, switching back and forth according to how you wish to derail the discussion.
The bottom line is this:
There is no proof jurisdiction cannot be granted during sede vacante.
-
What is essential is that some bishops have jurisdiction, and are successors to the Apostles.
Yes, but they aren't any of the trad bishops.
-
What is essential is that some bishops have jurisdiction, and are successors to the Apostles.
Yes, but they aren't any of the trad bishops.
Then who is maintaining the apostolic succession?
If you claim Trad bishops cannot maintain the apostolic succession, who is?
-
That is an incredibly stupid statement. Sedevacantist means that there is no one living who is Pope.
No, sede vacante means vacant seat, meaning the Seat of Peter is unoccupied. There is no chairman. If there is no chairman, there is no one to appoint the subordinate chairman.
344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?
A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.
Read that again, and again, and again. Valid Episcopal appointments have always enjoyed the consent of the See of Peter. If this seat is vacant, there is no one to give consent.
-
A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.
The fact is the consent allowed the authority to devolve to others.
In the case of a sede vacante that tacit consent must be admitted. It's impossible to argue that legitimate Popes would be presumed to be refusing to permit and devolve the power to grant office in the event of a prolonged papal vacancy.
There is absolutely no doubt, all true Popes grant their bishops the powers needed to carry on the apostolic succession in an emergency situation after their death.
To state otherwise is to presume that they would will that the apostolic succession cease in the prolonged absence of a successor.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bishops in a prolonged sede vacante must have the power to confer jurisdiction, otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the apostolic succession. And all past Popes must be regarded as implicitly accepting that position.
-
What is essential is that some bishops have jurisdiction, and are successors to the Apostles.
Yes, but they aren't any of the trad bishops.
Then who is maintaining the apostolic succession?
If you claim Trad bishops cannot maintain the apostolic succession, who is?
Trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles. They are not members of the Episcopal College.
There are several theories out there that don't conflict with Church teaching.
-
Which according to you depended on him taking a chair with him. Without which, he would not have an official office, according to you.
No, the office cannot be destroyed, but the physical thing which represents or symbolizes the office, the cathedra, can be destroyed.
The chair is a symbol of office. So St. Peter had an office. All the extraneous things you mentioned before about titles and chairs, etc, has nothing to do with the essence of the office.
St. Peter held an office, of which the physical symbol is the actual cathedra that is located in the Lateran Basilica of St. John. The holder of this office bears the title of Pope. This office has a particular essence. It is above all other offices in the Church, excepting Our Lord's Office, which is Head of His Church. He is the King. He has an actual Throne in Heaven. Below the Pope are the Metropolitan or Archbishops. The essence of their offices is subordinate to the Pope, and their areas of jurisdiction, or Sees, are subordinate to the See of Peter. Then you have the Diocesan Bishops, who are subordinate to the Metropolitan Bishops, as are their Sees. Then you have the Vacariate Apostolics, and then the Prefecture Apostolics. Each of these offices have a a particular essence, and each of them has a seat. I may be wrong about the Apostolics in regards to having a seat. I am open to correction. Your assertion that titles and chairs has nothing to do with the essence of an Episcopal office is unfounded. There is an obvious difference between the essence of the Papal See and a Diocesan See. If you cannot see this difference, then it's pointless to debate this.
The offices could all be empty though, if nothing is done to fill them. However, it was not necessary in the past for the Pope to directly control the granting of jurisdiction.
These offices become vacant upon the resignation or death of those who validly hold these offices. In order for them to be filled, the Holy See has to appoint an individual. As was pointed out by SJB, Espiscopal appointments always had Papal consent. Now, you and I agree that there was a disruption in the line of succession occuring with the invalid election of Fr. Angelo Roncalli. In order to resign an Episcopal office, one submits one's resignation to the Pope. If there is no one to accept your resignation, you are still a valid office holder.
The bottom line is this:
There is no proof jurisdiction cannot be granted during sede vacante.
There is proof, you refuse to accept the proof.
Again, I ask, what is the essence of the authority of ordinary jurisdiction wielded by the uncanonical Bishops? Can Trad Bishop Flanaganagain excommunicate Trad Father Magillacuddy and label him vitandi because Father does not hold the opinion that una cuм masses are verboten, and as an extension, declare that all the laity who receive the sacraments from him are subject to the same condemnation? Are all these Bishops equal in their authority or is based on seniority, meaning the earliest consecrated Bishops are above the Johnny come latelies?
Please accept my apologies for my calling you clueless, Tele. These are trying times for all of us, but we must take great care not to make things up in order to try to find answers to this great mystery with which we deal. I am certain of three things. I am one day going to die. The Holy Trinity is God, and the Second Person of this Divine Trinity, Jesus Christ instituted a Church, outside of which there is no hope for salvation. This same Jesus Christ promised His One, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church will last until the end of time, which means there exist/s validly and licitly consecrated individual/s who have ordinary jurisdiction. Just because I don't know who or where he/they are, doesn't mean he/they aren't. Don't be a doubting Thomas. Do you think it impossible that God, our Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible, could keep one or more of the men consecrated and appointed by Pope Pius XII in good physical, mental and spiritual health? Don't be one of those of little faith. Trust in God, Tele, His ways are not our ways. Be aware of what you hope to obtain when you meditate on the fourth Sorrowful Mystery of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin: patience.
Pax Christi,
Brian
-
Trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles. They are not members of the Episcopal College.
So you say. It's apparent that the faithful bishops must have the power to choose apostolic successors.
There are several theories out there that don't conflict with Church teaching.
This is hardly an explanation.
-
No, the office cannot be destroyed, but the physical thing which represents or symbolizes the office, the cathedra, can be destroyed.
You literally said he had a portable chair and that was necessary for his office
There is an obvious difference between the essence of the Papal See and a Diocesan See. If you cannot see this difference, then it's pointless to debate this.
It is pointless to debate things when you debate positions I've never taken. Never did I say the office of the Papacy was the same as a diocesan See.
These offices become vacant upon the resignation or death of those who validly hold these offices.
Except it has not always been direct appointment by the Holy See that has filled such offices.
In order for them to be filled, the Holy See has to appoint an individual. As was pointed out by SJB, Espiscopal appointments always had Papal consent.
As must sede vacante crisis appointments must have implicit consent of the last valid Pope. Otherwise there is no way to carry on the apostolic succession in a long sede vacante. This is just common sense.
There is proof, you refuse to accept the proof.
There isn't proof that authority to grant jurisdiction has not devolved as a matter of necessity. These passages cited about the necessity for papal authorization presuppose that there is a Pope in office.
-
Trad bishops are not Successors to the Apostles. They are not members of the Episcopal College.
So you say. It's apparent that the faithful bishops must have the power to choose apostolic successors.
What Bishop "chose his successor?" Not even the pope can choose a successor.
There are several theories out there that don't conflict with Church teaching.
This is hardly an explanation.
Well, your "explanation" isn't even a Catholic explanation.
-
What Bishop "chose his successor?" Not even the pope can choose a successor.
That isn't true. There's nothing to prevent a Pope from stacking the Cardinal of Councils to ensure that his own hand-picked successor is chosen. And there are probably other ways to do it too.
Well, your "explanation" isn't even a Catholic explanation.
Sure it is. It is the explanation that applies to a situation like a prolonged sede vacante.
You have not explained how it's possible for the apostolic succession to continue. Yet it must. Now it must continue visibly, among Bishops with the Catholic Faith. This is certain.
-
There isn't proof that authority to grant jurisdiction has not devolved as a matter of necessity. These passages cited about the necessity for papal authorization presuppose that there is a Pope in office.
That's because a pope is required to at least designate. This was true when the metropolitan, or the bishops of the province elected a bishop. The pope had explicitly approved of this method and therefore implicitly approved of the candidate.
You have no source for a single bishop appointing another bishop and consecrating him for an office.
-
What Bishop "chose his successor?" Not even the pope can choose a successor.
That isn't true. There's nothing to prevent a Pope from stacking the Cardinal of Councils to ensure that his own hand-picked successor is chosen. And there are probably other ways to do it too.
That's not choosing (naming) a successor. There still must be a canonical election.
Well, your "explanation" isn't even a Catholic explanation.
Sure it is. It is the explanation that applies to a situation like a prolonged sede vacante.
You have not explained how it's possible for the apostolic succession to continue. Yet it must. Now it must continue visibly, among Bishops with the Catholic Faith. This is certain.
You just made it up because it is expedient for you.
-
That's not choosing (naming) a successor. There still must be a canonical election.
What proof do you have that a Pope cannot choose his successor? The Pope can install or remove any cleric. He can change the Canon Law.
You just made it up because it is expedient for you.
That's what they say about sedevacantism, but really, it's about drawing necessary conclusions.
-
That's not choosing (naming) a successor. There still must be a canonical election.
What proof do you have that a Pope cannot choose his successor? The Pope can install or remove any cleric. He can change the Canon Law.
329. Q. Can the Pope elect his successor?
A. The Pope is prohibited from electing his successor, not only by ecclesiastical but also by divine and natural law; and such election would be null and void. Hence, “he, Sovereign Pontiff could not, even with the consent of the cardinals, validly issue a constitution authorizing a Pope to elect or appoint his successor” (infra, n. 457).
150. The Roman Pontiff after his legitimate election obtains at once, from the moment he accepts the election, by Divine right the full power of his supreme jurisdiction. (Canon 219.)
-
Telesphorus, if you're interested in this subject, or matters pertaining to ecclesiology in general, I think you'll like this book, by Msgr.Journet in 1954, the Church of the Incarnate Word, in case you have not read it. It also deals with a variety of other topics.
Anyway, in response to what you said, in the judgment of the best theologians, it is required by the very monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught. The point is this new manifestation of the life of the Church in her ministers is incapable of originating elsewhere than in her head, the Vicar of Christ. Through no other channel can Bishops receive their ordinary power of jurisdiction and enter canonical offices else the doctrine of Pope Pius XII would be false, and there would be Bishops who received jurisdiction elsewhere than through the Pope.
To the bishops it is given mediately, through the Pope: the Saviour, says Cajetan, sends down His power first on the head of the Church, and thence to the rest of the body.
But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs.
However, to say that the bishops' jurisdiction comes down to them from the Sovereign Pontiff is not to say that it comes down to them by the mere will of the latter or in virtue of a free canonical provision. The power to bind and to loose committed to Peter alone, the supreme pastor of the Church, as in its source -- "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19) -- is, by a constitutional provision, to come down to the secondary pastors -- "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven " (Matt. xviii. 18).
-
Apologies. Here's the book I mentioned.
-
There can be no doubt that the power to continue the apostolic jurisdiction is granted in the absence of a Pope.
During sede vacante the apostolic succession and juridisdiction do not cease.
It is absolutely futile to continue to refer to docuмents that do not address the issue of sede vacante.
No one denies that bishops must be granted their jurisdiction from a Pope that is in office, directly or indirectly.
That being said, jurisdiction and the Apostolic succession must continue, whether there's a sitting Pope or not. It must be admitted that they continue, so it must be admitted that the power to grant jurisdiction must devolve.
There's no other possible conclusion, in a long sede vacante.
No other conclusion is possible.
-
Wow.
Well, I'm glad you clearly take the matter seriously and perceive the implications such a Catholic doctrine would have in the present day, even though you don't agree. But, that said, may I just suggest you make sure for yourself, from whatever sources you trust, what is the precise doctrine here before you ponder its consequences at the current time?
Because we must never think, as some souls do today, that difficult doctrines as expounded precisely and exactly by learned and pious minds of the past are in need of ambiguous or less precise reformulation to meet the needs of our time.
If you want a more proximate source than a theology manual, you might want to consider Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier's writings and actions. They say clearly that the current Bishops of the Society possess no ordinary jurisdiction. Archbishop Lefebvre was well aware of the underlying doctrines here. Almost all traditional Bishops, and the SSPX certainly, knows this quite well.
Now I know you are a sede by conviction, Telesphorus, and you know I am not, but the majority of posters even on this thread who do not agree with you have been sedevacantists. There are many theories out there, the most prominent being that there must still be a Bishop consecrated under Pope Pius XII out there somewhere. I believe Brian mentioned this theory he holds.
That being said, jurisdiction and the Apostolic succession must continue, whether there's a sitting Pope or not. It must be admitted that they continue, so it must be admitted that the power to grant jurisdiction must devolve.
Ah, but there's the problem. This power is that proper to the universal jurisdiction alone, and is therefore incapable of residing in any subject other than in the Supreme Pontiff. Put simply, the transmission of the particular jurisdiction presupposes the channel of the universal jurisdiction in act.
B. THE CHURCH DURING A VACANCY OF THE HOLY SEE
We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. [896]
But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented. But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. [897]
896During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “
-
They say clearly that the current Bishops of the Society possess no ordinary jurisdiction.
Three points about this:
1) They claim supplied jurisdiction
2) They are not sedevacantists so there's no vacuum that has to be filled
3) except in practice they do act as though there is a vacuum they are filling.
-
There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented.
Yet the apostolic succession must continue, one way or another. What is necessary for the Church to continue must be supplied.
-
1) They claim supplied jurisdiction
Of course, which more than suffices for issues pertaining to the sacraments (of matrimony and penance) being granted not as a principle or a habit but for and only for very specific acts in an entirely transient and temporary manner.
But supplied jurisdiction is not a kind of ordinary jurisdiction. In fact, it presupposes the lack of habitual jurisdiction that is attached to an office. That is to say, the fact that jurisdiction is supplied only goes to show that the Bishop in question acknowledges he does not possess ordinary jurisdiction.
2) They are not sedevacantists so there's no vacuum that has to be filled
Well, yes and no. On the practical and pastoral level, with concern for the salvation of souls, the responsibilities of priests and Bishops to provide for the faithful, there is.
But in the sense I think you mean it, yes, it is true they are not sedevacantists. But the principle is the same. No Bishop has the power to install another into an episcopal see and almost every Bishop today, even sedevacantist, certainly the CMRI for one, know and acknowledge it.
3) except in practice they do act as though there is a vacuum they are filling.
For the salvation of souls yes. By disputing or changing what pertains to the constitution of the Church, no.
Yet the apostolic succession must continue, one way or another. What is necessary for the Church to continue must be supplied.
I take it by this statement you mean that these Bishops receive ordinary jurisdiction directly from Christ since of course, we know supplied jurisdiction is not a kind of ordinary jurisdiction but pressuposes the lack of it.
As mentioned, the state of habitual jurisdiction or an ecclesiastical office cannot be conferred by the mere consecration of another Bishop, and by divine institution in the Catholic Church is never conferred directly by Christ but only mediately from the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Pius XII has taught this and has thereby henceforth forbidden Catholics to freely speculate otherwise.
It is also very serious for a Bishop to think he has this power. I do not know of many who do, certainly most traditional Bishops, even sede, know they do not. But for a Bishop to think he has this power would be quite grave indeed.
God bless.
-
Any decisions from the pontificate of Pius XII that cut out the legs from a traditionalist stance have to be looked at and examined.
Whether it's the law for papal elections that goes against cuм ex apostolatus or whether it's this forbidding of speculation about jurisdiction.
Non-sedevacantists who disregard the teachings of Popes past Vatican II should be open to looking at those things which presaged the conciliar disaster, including those things during the pontificate of Pius XII.
Now I accept Pope Pius XII, but I also recognize the evil ferment that was occurring, and the fact that he raised into important positions men who later acted in ways to break down the Church. For that reason, decisions that would cut the legs out from other future traditionalists need to be scrutinized.
-
Any decisions from the pontificate of Pius XII that cut out the legs from a traditionalist stance have to be looked at and examined.
Whether it's the law for papal elections that goes against cuм ex apostolatus or whether it's this forbidding of speculation about jurisdiction.
Non-sedevacantists who disregard the teachings of Popes past Vatican II should be open to looking at those things which presaged the conciliar disaster, including those things during the pontificate of Pius XII.
Now I accept Pope Pius XII, but I also recognize the evil ferment that was occurring, and the fact that he raised into important positions men who later acted in ways to break down the Church. For that reason, decisions that would cut the legs out from other future traditionalists need to be scrutinized.
The speculation was concerning whether the power of jurisdiction came directly from God or through the Roman Pontiff. There was no dispute concerning the role of the Roman Pontiff in selecting either the candidates or the method of selection by metropolitans.
-
There is absolutely no doubt, all true Popes grant their bishops the powers needed to carry on the apostolic succession in an emergency situation after their death.
No, the bishop who was installed in a territory retains his jurisdiction when the pope dies. He can delegate jurisdiction while he is alive. He can do no more than this.
-
I'm just noticing something now that I wonder how has skipped my attention before - those who deny in practice or otherwise this teaching of Pope Pius XII are usually already disparaging or at least suspicious of his pontificate for other reasons. Fr.Cekada comes to mind, but there are other examples. I wonder if that is a coincidence?
Anyway, Telesphorus, apart from the fact that the teaching in question can already be shown in the Encyclical writings and docuмents of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius IX, and even earlier, as by far and away the more certain teaching, as well as being backed by illustrious Saints and other authorities, since it was brought up here, I will give a brief proof that the Papacy of Pope Pius XII is quite simply a dogmatic fact, that requires a certain assent of faith from all Catholics, from one of Msgr.Van Noort's widely read works.
Since it was established in the volume, Christ’s Church, that the Church’s infallible teaching power extends to matters connected with revelation and that its infallible authority deserves an absolutely firm assent, the only question which remains is what name to give that assent and how to describe its nature. These points will be discussed in just a moment.
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Not that it really should matter, but since we've delved into this, here are some additional considerations.
Fr.Garrigou Lagrange, a master of the spiritual life, widely regarded as the greatest Thomist of this last century, unrelenting champion against modernism, also held a high opinion of the Pope, and is even thought to be the driving force behind one of his Encyclicals in question.
Here is the judgment of another man on the same Supreme Pontiff, himself one of the most learned theologians of the 20th century, Msgr.Joseph Fenton.
Those of us who have been privileged to teach the tractatus de ecclesia Christi throughout the entire pontificate of Pope Pius XII know from experience how brilliantly and effectively he contributed to the advance of clerical studies in this line. In his clear statement of Catholic doctrine, and in his forceful repudiation of extravagant teachings on this subject, he advanced the cause of God's revealed truth as few men have done before him.
-
Any decisions from the pontificate of Pius XII that cut out the legs from a traditionalist stance have to be looked at and examined.
Whether it's the law for papal elections that goes against cuм ex apostolatus or whether it's this forbidding of speculation about jurisdiction.
Non-sedevacantists who disregard the teachings of Popes past Vatican II should be open to looking at those things which presaged the conciliar disaster, including those things during the pontificate of Pius XII.
Now I accept Pope Pius XII, but I also recognize the evil ferment that was occurring, and the fact that he raised into important positions men who later acted in ways to break down the Church. For that reason, decisions that would cut the legs out from other future traditionalists need to be scrutinized.
Mr. Telephorus,
Your argument on this thread is quite good, but beware this line of reasoning. It provides the opponents of your excellent logic quite a large hole to pass through and thereby defeat your argument in spite of their own incorrect logic. The problem at the Vatican during the reign of Pope Pius XII was not with the men he himself raised up, but rather with the men his predecessor Pope Pius XI had promoted to high positions before 1939. Case in point: the horrid apostate Montini.
In brief, Bugnini was merely a bureaucrat's bureaucrat who obeyed orders no matter what. Under Pope Pius XII Bugnini's work was excellent, then he carried on according to Pope Pius XII's inspired directions under the private heretic Pope (?) John XXIII and finally Bugnini failed miserably under Anti-Pope Paul VI (who had waged a Vatican coup d'etat in early 1963?). But such are soulless bureaucrats like Bugnini.
The essential idea here is to understand that Mr. Hobble's affirmation of the authority of Pope Pius XII is absolutely correct and does not in any way contradict what you are saying in favour of the governing authority of Roman Catholic bishops. On the contrary! Pope Pius XII taught that the authority of the Papacy is PERMANENT, whether during an interregnum or whenever. To say, as your opponents in this argument appear to do, that somehow Pope Pius XII's ringing affirmation of Papal authority turns into a Protestant-like "supplied jurisdiction" during Papal interregnums is the logic that contradicts everything the good Pope Pius XII was asserting.
The practical key to the exercise of Papal authority is the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy. So we should argue that this universal jurisdiction is PERMANENT and continues unabated during every Papal interregnum, especially the current one. How can the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See be real if during every Papal interregnum all new Catholic bishops must absurdly lack their own inherent ordinary jurisdiction? What is it that shows forth the true universal jurisdiction of the Papacy within Holy Mother Church if not precisely the ordinary jurisdiction of our Roman bishops? How does the denial of the ordinary jurisdiction of our Catholic episcopacy somehow better respect the PERMANENT universal jurisdiction of the Papacy?
The LAST thing we Catholics should ever do is question the excellence and magnificence of the reign of Pope Pius XII! That is to "shoot ourselves in the foot" if ever there could be such a thing. It behooves our side to be the Papists' Papists in this debate! To be the Zelanti "stormy petrels" of the UNIVERSAL jurisdiction of the Papacy (in TIME as well as in space). We must NEVER doubt or cast any aspersions on the glory of Papal Rome before the traitor Montini betrayed everything that could be betrayed in our incomparably beloved Holy City, the New Jerusalem of Eternal Rome.
-
Well, I'm glad there's a counterexample to the trend, since Brother Francis clearly has a positive opinion of Pope Pius XII.
Anyway, you tie your position so intimately to an opinion that "we should argue that this universal jurisdiction is PERMANENT and continues unabated during every Papal interregnum" for which you cite no authorities, which is very easily disproven from several sources, and together with which, your entire position would crumble.
"During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state, she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “ The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power. Whoever contests that falls into the error of John Hus -- who denied the need of a visible ruler for the Church -- condemned in advance by St. Thomas, then by Martin V at the Council of Constance. And to say that the Church in this state holds her power immediately from Christ and that the General Council represents her, is to err intolerably “
(De Comparatione etc, cap. vi, 74)"
The power you are talking about is headship of the Church. It does reside in the members of the body.
Nor can the universal jurisdiction be construed as a mere sum of the particular jurisdictions. That is completely incorrect, and shows moreover that your thinking on this matter is not as solidly grounded in traditional sources as it should be, and may lead to the revival of ancient errors long since condemned about the relation between a Council against a Pope. The universal jurisdiction of the Pope is much more than the simple sum of particular jurisdictions of the Bishops put together.
If therefore each bishop, in virtue of his episcopate, possesses properly only a particular jurisdiction, it follows that the sum of the bishops possess, in virtue of their episcopate alone, only a sum of particular jurisdictions; which sum in no wise amounts to a universal jurisdiction.
Supposing even, as Cajetan does, that after the death of a Pope all the bishops in the world meet and agree in a universal synod, there will then be a quantitative and cuмulative jurisdictional universality; but, between that and the qualitative and essential universality of the supreme pastor there remains an abyss. [894] No decision, for example, belonging to the proper power of the Pope could be taken, no truth implicitly revealed could be explicitly defined.
Your position is also quite literally self-refuting. If you believe your Bishops have jurisdiction, their opinions would be binding on you. Then why, pray tell, do you not accept their own opinion which they tell you, that they do not have jurisdiction?
It is the essence of modernism to want to adapt the doctrines of the Church to the needs of our times. This is what they've done for the past 50 years, and yet, incredibly, this very same thing in an another matter, adapting doctrines that could have inconvenient implications, is apparently what some are proposing as the solution.
No authorities are cited, no docuмents are referenced. Something must be because it must be, regardless of what Saints have said and theologians taught with Popes confirming. Even these last should be re-examined in the light of our modern wisdom. This is most certainly not traditional Catholicism and has exactly nothing to do with preserving untarnished the faith of 20 Christian centuries. This is make-it-up-as-you-go-along-modernism, so sorry to say, and even sorrier to observe.
-
The practical key to the exercise of Papal authority is the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy. So we should argue that this universal jurisdiction is PERMANENT and continues unabated during every Papal interregnum, especially the current one. How can the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See be real if during every Papal interregnum all new Catholic bishops must absurdly lack their own inherent ordinary jurisdiction? What is it that shows forth the true universal jurisdiction of the Papacy within Holy Mother Church if not precisely the ordinary jurisdiction of our Roman bishops? How does the denial of the ordinary jurisdiction of our Catholic episcopacy somehow better respect the PERMANENT universal jurisdiction of the Papacy?
Only the pope has universal jurisdiction. There is a distinction between the seat and the seated. The seat is permanent, the seated necessarily fails at times.
-
VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
15. "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.
"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)
-
Our Catholic (Traditional) Bishops are (formally) Apostolic and they have approval of they Holy See:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htm
-
:facepalm:
You have to consult the CMRI Fathers, for example, before you people make further embarrassments of yourselves and a mockery the entire raison d'être of the apostolates you are trying to defend.
Hereby is shown how subtle theological error can become a proximate occasion of lapsing into heresy properly so-called.
Those who erroneously insist, to the prejudice of the doctrines of the theologians who expound upon the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and Œcuмenical Councils, that the clerici acephali atque vagi can arrogate to themselves formal Apostolic succession, together with the possession and exercise of habitual or delegated jurisdiction, ultimately surrender themselves to a sort of "default episcopalianism" wherein the acephalous state of Holy Mother Church during the vacancy or usurpation of the Apostolic See is institutionalized and normalized, making the primacy of the Roman Pontiff a mere "legalistic formality" in the concession of Canonical mission and office, together with the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction.
This is tantamount to subscribing to the impious ecclesiology of the formally condemned Hussites who denied the necessity of a visible head for the Church Militant, "For there is not a spark of evidence that there should be one head ruling the Church in spiritual affairs, which head always lives and is preserved with the Church militant herself" (Denziger, no. 653).
So you people are now essentially repeating the errors condemned by the Œcuмenical Council of Constance (Session XV, 6 July 1415) and by Pope Martin V in the Bulls Inter cunctas and In eminentis (22 February 1418).
You are also undermining the perpetuity of the office of the Roman Pontiff, together with the very imperishability and indefectibility of the Church as established by Christ in invoking some novel hermeneutic of necessity whereby your insecurities and anxieties before the serious objections of the non-sedevacantists are assuaged to the detriment of doctrinal orthodoxy and integrity: ironically negating the teachings of the Vatican Council which you people purport to defend.
In positing a species of "ecclesial solipsism" whereby there can be ascribed to the conglomerate of acephalous and vagrant clerics a sort of anti-hierarchical aseity, you are imitating the modus operandi of the very modernists whom you professedly oppose: they too have undermined and subverted the divinely-established hierarchical constitution of the Church, which is inexorably bound and subject to the indisputable primacy that is proper to the Roman Pontiff alone.
As someone has wisely pointed out:
Your position is also quite literally self-refuting. If you believe your Bishops have jurisdiction, their opinions would be binding on you. Then why, pray tell, do you not accept their own opinion which they tell you, that they do not have jurisdiction?
It is the essence of modernism to want to adapt the doctrines of the Church to the needs of our times. This is what they've done for the past 50 years, and yet, incredibly, this very same thing in an another matter, adapting doctrines that could have inconvenient implications, is apparently what some are proposing as the solution.
No authorities are cited, no docuмents are referenced. Something must be because it must be, regardless of what Saints have said and theologians taught with Popes confirming. Even these last should be re-examined in the light of our modern wisdom. This is most certainly not traditional Catholicism and has exactly nothing to do with preserving untarnished the faith of 20 Christian centuries. This is make-it-up-as-you-go-along-modernism, so sorry to say, and even sorrier to observe.
-
Here is something in The Four Marks newspaper which is vetted by CMRI Priests:
More seriously, how does one account for their complete undiscoverability, even by its most loyal possible friends?
Can the Church be regarded as a visible society unless at least one living episcopal officer of it can be identified by name? I don’t see how. It is one thing to say that you or I do not know the answer to that question as we sit here talking about it. Many things like this might simply not be common knowledge. And some bishops have had to function “underground.” But it is quite a different thing for not one to be discoverable by anyone, all around the world. Back in the 1970’s most Catholics vaguely knew that there was some such faithful bishop truly keeping his diocese Catholic, perhaps somewhere in South America. It couldn’t have taken too much asking around to find out that the bishop in question was Bp. Antonio de Castro-Meyer of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. But no amount of asking around or digging can point any of us to such a bishop today.
The City on the Hill may be camouflaged, but never truly hidden. At least some of its light must always shine through even the thickest fog. Even if some dire threat could seemingly force them to conceal their existence as a hidden papal succession somewhere, how is it that not even the name taken by any current secretly reigning pontiff has ever been let slip out? Could any “Pope Gregory XVII” still be alive after all these years? Yet no successor is named. Surely if such a pope existed, he would have wanted to enable all faithful clergy to be able to express their union with Peter by naming him in the Canon of the Mass, etc. And after all, that really wouldn’t reveal anything useful for anyone trying to threaten him. And what threat could be so dire as to warrant abandoning the remainder of the whole Church all around the world to careless and heretical pastors all alike without authority or authoritativeness in the Gospel? Not even the detonation of a nuclear bomb under the Holy City could do as much damage as has been done by the enactment of Vatican II.
The apostolic mission of the Church continues to be the conversion of the world. Therefore, they cannot all be content to remain hidden in whatever corner of the earth they presently occupy, showing no concern for all the rest of us. How would one account for their universal refusal or inability to continue the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all creation and baptize the nations in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost? For if only any one or more of them did, we the Faithful could find them. Indeed, it is they who should be seeking us out, not the other way around, for the Lord is ever anxious to gather His sheep. While one could posit that some few might be stranded on desert islands or trapped in gulags or solitary confinement, how is it that not one has been released over all these many years, as the angel freed Peter and company from prison (Acts 5:17-25)? Does God no longer watch over His own Church?
-
What do Van Noort and the Church say? And what do they not say?
I say the Apostolic Church can be pointed out. The others that claim their intepretation of the doctrine pertaining to the necessity of bishops of being "adopted" by the authority of the Pope into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church being necessary for them to have full jurisdiction claim we do not know where the apostolic Church is, we only know it must exist, making the doctrine into some mystery almost as perplexing as the the mystery of the Holy Trinity Itself.
Those who want to pick a side on the issue have a choice:
1. I don't know where the apostolic Church is.
2. The apostolic Church is in our visible Catholic Bishops
I opt for #2. I know the Church is formally Apostolic and visible and I know where to look for it (and where not to look for it). And I know my ability to say "there it is" does not contradict any doctrine anymore than my saying BOB/D does not contradict the EENS Dogma. It is "both and" not "either or". Van Noort and Pius XII would look. The same place all with a sensus fidelium would look.
Commentaries from Griff (in red; Van Noort in black, me green):
The way in which individual bishops are established must now be discussed. Even though the episcopal office is something established by God, it is quite obvious that individual rulers of individual dioceses are not directly established not by God, but by men.
[my objections were hastily put together but Griff makes sense of them and sets them straight]I believe territorial dioceses have done away with since Paul 6 retired from being Pope of the Catholic Church in 1964 and became the head of his definition of the Mystical Body of Christ which at that time was composed of the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Churches. It embodied all Christians. As time went on the Catholic faithful left the formerly Catholic Institution and were replaced completely by non-Catholics though there are some Catholic-at-heart still there and people who will be saved and whose charity makes many traditionalists look bad.
The case for the dissolution of all diocesan boundaries is (at this point) somewhat complex and inferential. It was not the bare fact of the resignation of Paul VI that effected it. Rather, it was the attempt (unsuccessful in the case of heretical/schismatic ministers of false religions, but – according to my theory – successful in the case of valid orthodox-in-teaching and personally appointed/chosen successors) to allocate salvific jurisdiction and faculties to those who are de jure not answerable to the Vatican organization nor to he himself, which is to say, to religious communities and congregations etc. that are not bound to the territorial [emphasis mine; LoT] divisions of the Vatican organization, which implicitly declares the former dioceses of the Church to be no longer applicable to the Church that subsists outside that organization. They do remain applicable to what portions of the Church continue to subsist within it, but only with respect to other portions of the Church subsisting within it. On the same level, were (for example) the SSPX to divvy of the world in general territorial regions (whether they call them “dioceses” or not) with certain clergy assigned to some and other clerics to others, that division would equally apply, but again only in respect to the clergy of the SSPX.
In fact, multiple regional divvying’s of territory could easily coexist in the same geographical area, precisely in the same manner that territorial dioceses of the various Rites of the Church had also long occupied the same geographical space.
At this juncture we are not inquiring from whom the bishops proximately receive their jurisdiction, but what is required for them actually to function as pastors of their diocese and to exercise their jurisdiction there.
What is meant by the word “proximately”? Is the “whom” they receive their jurisdiction someone they do not receive it directly from but only “approximately” from? You will notice who they receive their jurisdiction from is distinguished from “what” is required for them to “actually function" as pastors of their diocese and to exercise their jurisdiction there.
Commonly, the “proximate” source of a bishop’s jurisdiction would be the pope, though at various times in Church history it has been various Patriarchs, the priests over a diocese or other flock, the laity of a given diocese or other flock, secular (but Christian) princes, and finally any of various sorts and groupings of fellow bishops from neighboring dioceses or other flocks. So in discussing the necessity of the “adoptio” the question of whether the person designating a bishop to have this “adoptio” is a pope personally or someone else acting on behalf of the pope, or at least the Papal Chair (if empty), was not immediately necessary, though worthy of discussion a few paragraphs down. But first and most key is the question of having it or not (a simple yes/no thing; a bishop has the “adoptio” or not). If he doesn’t have it then he cannot function as a pastor nor exercise any jurisdiction (probably not counting epikeia or supplied jurisdiction, both of which seem to be outside the scope of this discussion here). If he does have it (regardless of whether it was proximately provided by a pope personally or by some other approved method), then he can function as a pastor and exercise jurisdiction.
To be able to do this, we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff.
Is there a difference between being given the expressed consent of a Pontiff and being “adopted” by [not “his”] the “authority” of the supreme pontiff?
The “authority” of the supreme pontiff provides the “adoptio” equally regardless of whether it results from the expressed consent of a living Pontiff personally or by any other approved mechanism. So, yes there is a difference in that the expressed consent of a living Pontiff personally is only one of a variety of ways in which the “authority” of the supreme pontiff can provide the “adoptio."
Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.”
Is the expressed consent of the roman pontiff the same as being adopted into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church?
The “adoptio” is exactly the same thing as being adopted into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church, equally achievable by either the expressed consent of a living roman pontiff personally or by any other authorized means.
What follows is where I was wrong and was rightly being corrected by all:
It would seem when a bishop is Catholic and consecrated he is a member of the corporate body of the pastors of the Church and that the Roman Pontiff, if there is one would have the authority to expand, limit or take away the authority of said Bishop, but the it is assumed he is fully functioning so long as he is Catholic and the Roman Pontiff, if there is one, does not express anything to the contrary.
I suppose one could claim a slight difference between being designated personally by a living pope versus being designated by any other approved mechanism in that the Pope has authority over that process, with the power to change it, revoke it, or annul the results of an attempt to follow the approved procedures by in effect overruling it. But this (possible) distinction would not amount to any difference in the nature or level of authority on the part of the bishop since a pope would be equally able to annul the appointment of the bishop as made by a previous pope, or even by himself as pope at some previous time, as made by some other approved mechanism.
One cannot assume authority merely on the basis that no pope as expressed anything to the contrary, regardless of what reason there would be for no such papal expression. Only the far more limited authority given on the basis or epikeia or supplied jurisdiction could ever be approved or counted as approved in the mere absence of a papal declaration about it. The kind of authority I am concerned with here requires an active assignment, whether made by a living pope personally, or by someone else so empowered by a pope (directly or indirectly) to make that kind of assignment.
Back to Van Noort, my non-erroneous thoughts and Griff's responses:
It designates the factor by which the formal admittance of a selected or elected candidate is brought to its final conclusion.
“It”. What? “The adoption or assumption [what is meant by “assumption” here?] into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church”. The adoption or assumption designates the factor by which the formal admittance of a selected or elected candidate is brought to its final conclusion.
Correct.
I’m still looking for where it says the expressed consent of the Pope is needed in order for Catholic bishops to be fully functional.
It doesn’t, despite the potential sophistries some may yet concoct to make things seem contrarywise. What is needed is only the “adoptio,” whether provided by a living pope personally (and by the way, “living” as I have been saying here all along meaning only that the pope is alive at the time of the appointment being made/approved, not that the bishop’s authority or “adoptio” would only remain so long as the pope is alive), or by any approved mechanism.
We use the phrase, “by the authority of the pope,” to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required.
Does that statement mean what it says or not? So the direct personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required.
Exactly. When, for example, bishops were selected by the Patriarch of some particular Rite, that Patriarch appointed the bishop “by the authority of the pope” since (at that time) the authority to make that kind of determination had been delegated to the Patriarchs by the Pope. So now (for example), with Lumen Gentium on the books, the authority to make that kind of determination is now deligated to any bishop who is doing so acting in union with the Papal Chair, and so thus did Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre and Bps. De Castro-Meyer and Mendez indeed provide that “adoptio” to their respective successions “by the authority of the pope.”
So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.
I now raise another fallacious objection:
Have not the original consecrators of our traditional bishops been entrusted with this task? (Thuc, [Puis XI], Lefebvre and Mayer, [Pius XII], Mendez, the Material Pope John 23).
In fact, I know there are reports that Thuc had some explicit permission to choose and create bishops from (I think) Pope Pius XI (though it could have been Pius XII, or even both, with the second reaffirming the first...), I have not seen it and would not know how to evaluate its authenticity or value. Since I have no real certainty here, and also don’t know of any others of our bishops having any such special permission (to say nothing of their successions), I am highly inclined to discount this sort of thing as being at best “not essential” to Abp. Thuc’s authority to choose and create bishops and provide them with the “adoptio” into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.
Also, it is not clear where the Material Pope John 23 figures into this since no known Catholic episcopal succession flows from him today. Unless you refer to what I mention as to the permission given by him (in an at least Material-Pope capacity) for Bp. Mendez to have been consecrated in 1960 (but someone else was his consecrator, not John 23).
Back to legitimate objections:
In saying that papal adoption is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because of ecclesiastical law currently in force; we mean it is necessary by the divine law itself.
There is absolutely no doubt this is a doctrine. But “papal adoption” has to be clearly defined. We have already been told that this does not necessarily mean we always need the expressed consent of a living Pope.
It is quite clearly defined and as such explicitly does not require expressed consent of a living Pope personally.
Even though this necessity has never been explicitly defined, it follows absolutely from Catholic principles.
It has been explicitly defined by Pius XII now.
As noted in Van Noort section 5 following.
It is a fact that a bishop cannot act as a pastor of the Church unless he be a member of that body which is a continuation of the apostolic college.
“The apostolic college”. He uses the term “apostolic” but I have not seen when he or anyone has defined when a Catholic bishop is not apostolic.
I think that the idea of a Catholic bishop who is not apostolic must have been regarded by Van Noort as being far too obscure an event or possibility as to be worth any mention, even as some sort of hypothetical extreme.
Now the Roman pontiff, as Christ’s vicar, presides over that college with full and supreme authority.
But somehow, we cannot assume the Catholic Bishops needed to preserve the Church are not members of that corporate body which submits itself to the papacy and a Pope when one exists?
That is indeed the insanity which those who would deprive our traditional clergy of authority (“adoptio”) would wish to impose upon us. No good reason to assume that our traditional clergy would not be part of that corporate body, none! That is my finding, yet some seem to have trouble with that. You and I both have to wonder, why?
It would be ridiculous, therefore, to think that someone could be constituted a member of that body in such fashion as not to need to be acknowledged or adopted in any way by the very head of that body, i.e., the Roman pontiff.
“Not to be acknowledged or adopted in any way”. Are we forced to deny that the only visible Catholic bishops in existence are not members of the corporate body under the papacy? What other ways might they be adopted other than the expressed will of a living Pontiff?
Obviously, “in any way” here includes all the proximate methods by which such a jurisdiction would be received.
Again, the Roman pontiff is the supreme shepherd of the entire Church to which the bishops may be compared as subordinate shepherds for each individual part of the Church.
Are the only visible Catholic bishops in existence not subordinate to the Papacy?
That is the inevitable result of denying what my theory claims, short of denying the existence of any visible Catholic bishops.
Does the Church insist on the impossible here? Has the Church even addressed our situation where some interpret a doctrine to mean it is impossible to have fully functioning bishops during an extended interregnum? If so, please show me the work.
They can’t. This is a most excellent challenge to throw out.
Clearly it would be nonsensical to think someone could take charge of part of the sheepfold without the agreement of the one who rules the universal sheepfold with complete authority. The objection is raised: in ancient times the popes did not intervene in any way at all in the selection of bishops. That they did not always intervene directly and by explicit consent is granted;
Here again I take an objection a little to far in the last sentence of the following, I know the Church is Apostolic and I know where that apostolicity is found and I know the fact that the only visible Catholic bishops are apostolic does not contradict the doctrine we are discussing. But Griff prevents me from straying once again (as he did with feeneyism):
So there is proof to the objection I have been raising. There have been times when the popes did not intervene directly and by explicit consent. This point must be granted to all those of good will in this debate. The doctrine that bishops must be integrated into corporate body of the Apostolic College by papal adoption or assumption in order to be Pastor must also be granted. Here we must look at what is meant by “papal adoption” or “assumption”. Does this mean that if a Catholic is consecrated bishop for the continuance of the Church that unless a Pope say to the contrary, the papal adoption is assumed?
As I have indicated above, I do not believe this can be assumed. But given the grave necessity for there to be a fully apostolic succession, legal, valid, orthodox-in-doctrine, and possessing the “adoptio” (canonical mission, jurisdiction, faculties, etc.), one can safely assume that there would be some basis of a direct and explicit kind, even if one did not know what it was. Ergo, it behooves one to look for that basis and not to despair before one finds it.
Back to legitimate objections:
Thanks be to God, explicit expressed consent by a living Pontiff is not, and cannot, be insisted upon. It was not needed before and is not needed now. I’m not sure how anyone can insist to the contrary.
Bingo!
That they did not intervene at all, not even mediately and by legal consent we deny.
In the debate on this issue I have seen things slowly side more towards Griff’s position. Here is the path that I have seen it take.
1. If there is a long interregnum there will be no more Apostolic Bishops.
2. The Traditional Bishops are Apostolic but only materially.
And the following:
1. The Pope must approve all consecrations.
2. It at least has to be approved implicitly, or mediately or by legal consent.
What does the writer mean by “mediately”? Those who claim it is de fide that we have no visible fully functioning Apostolic Bishops have had to deal with the need only approval that is “not explicit”, by “legal consent” and “mediately”. This term “mediately” opens up a whole new can of worms for those who insist that we have no visible fully functioning Apostolic Bishops because the term “mediately” seems to imply a “go between”. That someone other than a living Pope could approve. Could that “someone” be Jesus Christ?
I hope and pray that the trend you see is real. But “mediately” is just meaning that someone, some person delegated by whatever mechanism by the pope to be able to act in the pope’s behalf in this matter, therefore acts with the pope’s authority in this even in the absence of a pope, or silence (implying tacit consent) of a present and living pope.
In the absence of historical testimony, it is admittedly impossible to prove this statement directly.
It seems that Van Noort himself has run into a difficulty regarding this issue. And this is without his seeing our day. He admits that they did not “always intervene directly and by explicit consent” but he cannot show how this “implicit” or “legal” or “mediate” consent was given. Who is going to outsmart Van Noort and figure it out for him without contradicting the doctrine that the Bishops must be adopted or assumed into the corporate body by the Roman Pontiff? If Van Noort is not sure, and does not have an historical report on how bishops were adopted or assumed into the corporate body by the Roman Pontiff outside of expressed consent during comparatively normal times, how are we to provide during our far more confusing times?
Despite my sensus fidelium telling me that I can point to the fully Apostolic Church in our traditional bishops and that whatever doctrine that would appear to contradict to the untrained lay "theologian" I went about trying to intepret the theology manual in question despite my lack of qualification for doing so, and llike others on the other side of the issue was proven faulty in may interpretation, as I felt as if papal authority could be "assumed" in regards to our Catholic Bishops without there actually being an existing formal approval. Those lay people, qualified or not, on the otherside of the issue also incorrectly intepret Van Noort and Pius XII in insisting that our bishops do not have formal approval.
I just stand on the safe ground that says, our fully apostolic Church can be seen in our traditional bishops. Prove the assertion wrong. But no one can prove that assertion wrong, try as they might. But they are left say, "I don't know where the Church is. It is a great mystery."
I somewhat hastily put together these objections. I knew Griff would sort it out. See how I make him do the hard work. But that is because he is far more qualified than I am. So we will continue with my objections, some legitimate, some faulty, but all based on the correct suppostion that the apostolic Church is right before our eyes and not in the NO or in the woods. Notice how level-headed and scholarly Griff is in correcting me, these are the types of corrections I am used to when being corrected or vetted by friends in Christ:
All this means is that Van Noort is unable to prove from history that the popes of the opening centuries of the Church retained personal authority in this matter, such that they would be able to override any decision made by others acting on his behalf. This facet of the functioning of the Church over that period must be inferred from the fact of the doctrine, which Van Noort obviously believed to be as good as proven even before Pius XII yea verily finalized that doctrinal position.
Still, keeping in mind Catholic principles, it is fair enough to reconstruct the process somewhat as follows. The apostles and their principal aides, in accord with Peter’s consent and will, both selected the first bishops, and decreed that thereafter when sees became vacant the vacancy should be taken care of in some satisfactory way, and in a way which at the very least would not be without the intervention of the neighboring bishops.
There are three things to consider here.
1. The possibility that territorial jurisdiction was in fact taken away by the approval Lemen Gentium which showed that Montini/Paul 6 retired as the head of the Catholic Church and became the head of his definition of the mystical body of Christ which was now a conglomerate of Catholics and non-Catholics.
I trust you got that this put it all backwards, since the Mystical Body is precisely what Paul VI ceased to be head of (else he would still have been at least legally pope), and the dissolution of the diocesan boundaries is by far the much less obvious ramification.
2. The possibility that merely the “will” of Saint Peter and his valid successors is all that is needed for papally approved adoption or assumption into the corporate body, and such can be safely assumed until the contrary is proven.
No jurisdiction merely by default, and (thankfully) none needed.
3. The sees, the apostolic succession is to be taken care of.
4. And it is to be taken care of in “some satisfactory way”.
No clear criteria to establish what constitutes “some satisfactory way” apart from the fact that if it is approved, then I guess that in and of itself makes it “satisfactory.”
Do not Saint Peter, even now, and all his successors will the papally approved adoption or assumption of the only visible valid Catholic bishops into the corporate body?
In all justice they would have to. But that is not sufficient, so one can be certain that their intercessions would procure more for the Church than that.
It is shown here that Saint Peter and the Apostles and their principal aides saw fit that the holy sees of the bishoprics should be filled in some satisfactory way, even if it was without Peter’s or his successor’s explicit consent?
Obviously, and that alone ought to have been proof enough that it can be done.
Does this not show that there is some “satisfactory way” of adopting the bishops into the corporate body in a fully functioning way without the expressed consent of a living body while keeping the doctrine that they must be adopted or assumed by the authority of the supreme pontiff at least “implicitly” or “mediately” or by “legal will”? Remember that papal adoption is necessary and can be achieved by “someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.”
In other words apostolic succession must continue, and the Church does not ask the impossible. During a long interregnum papal approval is assumed as is the approval of Christ Himself. Otherwise we should not receive the Sacraments from them or support them or their seminaries for future priests. Starting seminaries is something only a fully functioning bishop can do is it not?
Good points, all. But as to what epikeia and supplied jurisdiction could extend to, it is not clear to me whether or not they could extend to the founding of seminaries, etc. Fortunately, even our present circuмstance does not force us to decide an issue on that basis in that we have more than these, thus rendering any potential limitations of them moot. Perhaps the question may arise in future ages and I can see people looking back at the various discussions in our situation and trying to decide from them whether or not they could provide the basis for such an extreme thing as founding seminaries and convents.
I can just see it now, some polemicist arguing in favor of epikeia and/or supplied jurisdiction being sufficient saying, “but note how all of Saints Pivarunas, Lefebvre, Dolan, and Kelly all seemed to consider it possible, even though it ultimately proved unnecessary,” and then his opponent in the debate argues, “no, they could not have been sufficient, so that is why something more had to be found,” and then the first responding, “No, that ‘something more’ was only needed for the overall future of the Church, not for the founding of particular seminaries and religious houses...”
As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter’s approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter’s authority ratified that selection implicitly.
What follows is yet another "objection" from John Gregory's book of "Crackpot Theology:
You can see that Van Noort is really trying to piece this history together in order to make what the early Church did conform to the doctrine of tacit papal approval being necessary for a fully functioning bishop. I would think being an orthodox bishop that submits to the papacy ratifies the consent of the papacy.
This is never a unilateral decision. A person does not just (somehow) get themselves consecrated a bishop, decide to do good for the Church, and then that automatically makes him a bishop of the Church until some pope comes along and says otherwise. If there is no pope, or if the pope elects to avoid direct personal involvement in such decisions, a man becomes a bishop of the Church if and only if he is accepted as such by other bishops of the Church, and in practice this would normally be granted to those chosen by whatever procedures were in place, were those procedures some election by the priests of a particular flock in need of a new bishop, or by the laity of same, or by selection by some secular (Christian) prince with whom said bishop would be expected to work closely on a daily basis, or by the bishops living nearby, or whatever else, and the nearby bishops (or a Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch) approves it and agrees to their consecration. In some exceptional cases, valid but non-apostolic bishops from historically schismatic lines, if they repent and wish to join the Church, and also bring in their flock, they may be granted jurisdiction over their flock that they bring into the Church with them. But again, in all cases, “other bishops” of at least some sort or other (Pope, Patriarch, Primate, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Cardinal bishop, local bishops of nearby dioceses or other flocks, and of course any bishops who would perform the consecration), must always be somewhere in the process.
Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways.
Again Van Noort talks about the “authority” of the “Apostolic See”. This is different that insisting on the expressed will of a living Pontiff. The “Apostolic See” is not the “Pope” but his area of jurisdiction. “Apostolic See” is not the same thing as “living Pope” but is rather a metaphorical term according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. So more proof that we do not need the consent, even implicit, of a living Pope, but according to Van Noort, this is obtained “only in virtue of the “authority” of the Apostolic See”.
When this mechanism was employed, the explicit consent of the Patriarch or Metropolitan provided the implicit consent of the Pope, and all with the authority of the Apostolic See.
Finally, in later centuries the matter of establishing bishops was set up in different fashion; indeed in such a way that in the Latin church especially, the direct intervention of the Roman pontiff was required. For details in this matter, consult the canonists.
So there are “different fashions” that have been used to establish bishops without effecting the doctrine that the authority of the Apostolic See’s approval being at least implicitly necessary.
All proving my contention that the doctrine does not imply personal intervention by a pope to be necessary.
The Church established different fashions, based on changing circuмstances, this does not change the doctrine, but only how it is applied. Have not our circuмstances changed since the death of Pope Pius XII? Who other than a living valid Pope can insist on a certain fashion of establishing fully functional bishops as being absolutely necessary regardless of the circuмstances?
The positive law remained in effect until Lumen Gentium changed it.
Griff obviously is not talking about the "Divine" positive law.
Assertion 5: Bishops receive jurisdiction over their flocks directly from the Roman pontiff. This is certain.
We don’t debate this. But we have seen this being fulfilled by tacit or legal will and by the “authority” of the “Apostolic See”. Of course when there is a Roman pontiff existence the visible valid Catholic Bishop’s jurisdiction flow from said Roman pontiff. When that pontiff dies they still are fully functioning bishops and as history proves, the act with the same authority they always had until they are proven to be heretics or a new pope takes away that authority. So what is the problem now? What Pope has come along and said, “No, you guys don’t count. You should not have been consecrated. I hereby decree that all of your jurisdictional power is null.”?
Bingo!
Briefly, do the bishops receive jurisdiction directly from God, or only indirectly through the mediation of the Roman pontiff?
Prior to Mystici Corporis, two opinions were held by Catholics:
In other words for the entire history of the Church’s existence it had not been settled. [My point here is that the Church has always done "what the Church does" such as when she consecrated fully functioning bishops in ancient times, and figured out the how's and the why's of it (in the deposit of faith) after the fact. Right now, the traditional bishops are doing "what the Church does" even if they are not aware of all that implies, including ordinary jurisdiction and the formal apostolicity of their ecclesiastical offices]
Obviously the Church was equally able to function with and without understanding this finer point. But again, look how long the Church functioned without it being quite so “settled” as to whether Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven or not.
1. Some theologians taught that God directly confers episcopal jurisdiction in each individual instance, either by the very consecration of the bishop, or in some other way. Consequently those authors were of the opinion that the pope either merely assigned the bishop his flock, or limited the bishop’s divinely conferred jurisdiction to a definite church, or by his consent fulfilled some condition without which Christ would not confer jurisdiction on the individual bishop, etc. But no matter how they explained the matter, they all admitted that jurisdiction was bestowed from heaven always in dependence upon and with subordination to the supreme pontiff, so that the pope could always restrict, extend, or even completely prohibit the exercise of that jurisdiction. This opinion, once hotly defended in the Council of Trent, was described by Benedict XIV as: backed by valid arguments.”
2. The other, and always the majority opinion, maintained that bishops received their jurisdiction not directly, but indirectly from God. They receive it, in other words, through the supreme pontiff who, in establishing them as bishops, at the same time by explicit will, or at least by legal will, confers jurisdiction upon them. This second opinion, in the judgment of the same Benedict XIV, “seems: (a) more in harmony with reason; and (b) more in harmony with authority.”
In reference to (a): It harmonizes better with the monarchical structure of the Church that all jurisdiction should be communicated to subordinate pastors by the supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ.
Again, since there is no doubt at all that the power of the supreme pontiff [interjection: when a supreme pontiff is in existence] suffices to confer jurisdiction on bishops, the direct intervention of God is adduced without any real need for it.
Furthermore, this second opinion gives a far easier explanation of why it is that the pope can diminish, increase, restrict, or even completely take away the jurisdiction of a bishop.
Finally, it is a fact that:
A bishop appointed to a diocese, but not yet consecrated, possesses jurisdiction; contrariwise, a bishop already consecrated, but not yet established over a diocese, lacks jurisdiction.
When he speaks of “a bishop not yet consecrated” is he saying “not yet consecrated a bishop”? I’m not sure how a bishop is a bishop before being consecrated such. I suppose he could be appointed as one and given jurisdiction first and then consecrated to formalize it.
In such a context as this, “bishop” not consecrated might have better been referred to as “bishop-to-be.”
Two consequences follow immediately from that fact: first, that episcopal jurisdiction is not conferred by consecration; secondly, that it is conferred through the mediation of papal confirmation [i.e., adoption]. – Zapalena, loc. cit.
To state the first more clearly, episcopal jurisdiction is not intrinsically conferred by consecration, and in fact is typically a separate event, either preceding or following the consecration. It is up to the proximate mediation of the pope to confirm the conferral of jurisdiction. However, a pope could set up the rules to unite the two events, such that the bare fact of a consecration would also carry with it implicitly the papal confirmation of jurisdiction. My suspicion is that if ever there were a complete absence of any positive law in this regard, the “natural default” would indeed unite these two events, but that is only a guess on my part. As the “Law” of Lumen Gentium explicitly unites these two actions, stating that the one brings about the other, not only sweeps away all past positive law in existence on the subject, but also sets up its new explicit positive law to indeed unite them, thus rendering moot any question of whether my suspicion on this is correct or not.
If someone can show that Christ does not will our Traditional Bishops to exist and function fully, by ordaining priests and establishing seminaries and confirming even when it is not a case of necessity I would like to see it.
Bingo!
In reference to (b); St. Optatus of Mileve says, “St. Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to confer them on others” (De schismate Donatistarum 7. 3). In these words, Optatus seems to have been considering, not the apostles [The apostles themselves, according to the more common opinion, received both their jurisdiction and their mission from Christ Himself directly (Zapalena, loc. cit., p. 105).] themselves, but their successors, the bishops.
Innocent I states that especially in questions of the faith, all bishops should consult St. Peter: “the originator of both his [the bishop’s] name and honor” (Epistula 30).
St. Leo I says of St. Peter, “If [Christ] willed the rest of the rulers to have anything in common with him [Peter], He never gave except through him whatever it was He did not deny to the others” (Sermo 4. 2).
Pius VI praises the Roman pontiff “from whom the bishops themselves receive their own authority just as he himself has received his supreme authority from God” (DB 1500).
Finally, in his epoch-making encyclical, Mystici Corporis, Pius XII states explicitly and without any qualification that the bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the pope:
as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.
Following this explicit, even though brief, declaration by Pius XII the first opinion is, we feel, no longer tenable. We would agree with Cardinal Ottaviani’s statement that the second opinion “should now . . . be rated as absolutely certain because of the words of the supreme pontiff, Pius XII.
Agreed. With all the proper distinctions being applied and understood.
Griff ends by stating that there is no need to contradict the doctrine
no need to contradict the doctrine in order for us to have fully functioning Bishops.
-
A bishop appointed to a diocese, but not yet consecrated, possesses jurisdiction; contrariwise, a bishop already consecrated, but not yet established over a diocese, lacks jurisdiction.
When he speaks of “a bishop not yet consecrated” is he saying “not yet consecrated a bishop”? I’m not sure how a bishop is a bishop before being consecrated such. I suppose he could be appointed as one and given jurisdiction first and then consecrated to formalize it.
The appointment to an office confers jurisdiction. You are failing to see the distinction between an appointment to an office in the Church and an episcopal consecration.
-
It doesn’t, despite the potential sophistries some may yet concoct to make things seem contrarywise.
"Sophistries"? Is everything that contradicts the all-knowing Griff Ruby and his trusty sidekick John a "sophistry"?
That is indeed the insanity which those who would deprive our traditional clergy of authority (“adoptio”) would wish to impose upon us. No good reason to assume that our traditional clergy would not be part of that corporate body, none! That is my finding, yet some seem to have trouble with that. You and I both have to wonder, why?
Because, Griff, the Church has spoken on this matter.
You are rank amateur who has the audacity to "interpret" Msgr. Van Noort as the Protestants "interpret" Sacred Scripture, whilst profaning the tenets of sacred theology on such grave matters.
Are the only visible Catholic bishops in existence not subordinate to the Papacy?
That is the inevitable result of denying what my theory claims, short of denying the existence of any visible Catholic bishops.
Yes, your "theory," which is theologically erroneous and, as this thread has shown, has become a proximate occasion of lapsing into heresy.
Does the Church insist on the impossible here? Has the Church even addressed our situation where some interpret a doctrine to mean it is impossible to have fully functioning bishops during an extended interregnum? If so, please show me the work.
They can’t. This is a most excellent challenge to throw out.
Sorry to spoil the tea-party, but the burden of proof lies upon you to substantiate these rash ecclesiological novelties.
Thanks be to God, explicit expressed consent by a living Pontiff is not, and cannot, be insisted upon. It was not needed before and is not needed now. I’m not sure how anyone can insist to the contrary.
Bingo!
You either accept what the Church has taught regarding her own constitution as established by Our Lord, or you can make it up as you go along and abide in your own little sect.
In the debate on this issue I have seen things slowly side more towards Griff’s position.
Gee, a debate with a friend with whom you agree, and with whom you have been single-minded and incorrigible in serious theological error: sounds like Pete n' Mike Dimond debating each other...
It seems that Van Noort himself has run into a difficulty regarding this issue. And this is without his seeing our day. He admits that they did not “always intervene directly and by explicit consent” but he cannot show how this “implicit” or “legal” or “mediate” consent was given. Who is going to outsmart Van Noort and figure it out for him without contradicting the doctrine that the Bishops must be adopted or assumed into the corporate body by the Roman Pontiff? If Van Noort is not sure, and does not have an historical report on how bishops were adopted or assumed into the corporate body by the Roman Pontiff outside of expressed consent during comparatively normal times, how are we to provide during our far more confusing times?
Again, the new "hermeneutic of necessity" in the novel ecclesiology of these people demands that the theologians of the past be interpreted in some sort of Hegelian dialectic and reformatted to fit what they deem as "our day" or ridiculed and scorned: it does not surprise me in the least since the Missal-sifting sedevacantists do not scruple to disparage the memory of Pope Pius XII.
Despite my sensus fidelium telling me that I can point to the fully Apostolic Church in our traditional bishops and that whatever doctrine that would appear to contradict to the untrained lay "theologian" I went about trying to intepret the theology manual in question despite my lack of qualification for doing so, and llike others on the other side of the issue was proven faulty in may interpretation, as I felt as if papal authority could be "assumed" in regards to our Catholic Bishops without there actually being an existing formal approval. Those lay people, qualified or not, on the otherside of the issue also incorrectly intepret Van Noort and Pius XII in insisting that our bishops do not have formal approval.
You speak correctly, your "sensus fidelium" (sense of the faithful?), not that of those Catholics who endeavor to abide by the doctrines set forth by the Church.
Regarding "lay theologians," aren't you one? Isn't Griff one?
Oh that's right! "Lay theologians" are a "bad" thing when they cite authorities that clearly refute your errors.
I just stand on the safe ground that says, our fully apostolic Church can be seen in our traditional bishops. Prove the assertion wrong. But no one can prove that assertion wrong, try as they might.
You are quite inane in saying this (for the 20th time or so, since you seem to reiterate your dicta ad nauseum fidelium, and you ought to read the responses to your posts carefully, instead of bumping them off, or dismissing them with rank sarcasm.
As I have written before, the acephalous and vagrant clerics are indeed part of the Church, but they neither constitute the Ecclesia docens properly so-called, nor can they, and they alone to the prejudice of other clerics throughout the Catholic world, be said to constitute the Church.
But they are left say, "I don't know where the Church is. It is a great mystery."
Making your "Apostolic [sic] clergy" as the Church in the sense in which you and Griff are implying is not answering this question: rather it either makes it all the more problematic, or you are concocting a theory that essentially makes these clerics into some sort of "extraordinary Church," which is nothing more than a new sect that is as Catholic as the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church.
So we will continue with my objections, some legitimate, some faulty, but all based on the correct suppostion that the apostolic Church is right before our eyes and not in the NO or in the woods. Notice how level-headed and scholarly Griff is in correcting me, these are the types of corrections I am used to when being corrected or vetted by friends in Christ
As opposed to "the mean-spirited poster," huh?
And here we go, yet again, ad nauseum fidelium in 3... 2... 1...
[Self-gratifying ecclesiological errors exchanged]
But as to what epikeia and supplied jurisdiction could extend to, it is not clear to me whether or not they could extend to the founding of seminaries, etc. Fortunately, even our present circuмstance does not force us to decide an issue on that basis in that we have more than these, thus rendering any potential limitations of them moot. Perhaps the question may arise in future ages and I can see people looking back at the various discussions in our situation and trying to decide from them whether or not they could provide the basis for such an extreme thing as founding seminaries and convents.
I can just see it now, some polemicist arguing in favor of epikeia and/or supplied jurisdiction being sufficient saying, “but note how all of Saints Pivarunas, Lefebvre, Dolan, and Kelly all seemed to consider it possible, even though it ultimately proved unnecessary,” and then his opponent in the debate argues, “no, they could not have been sufficient, so that is why something more had to be found,” and then the first responding, “No, that ‘something more’ was only needed for the overall future of the Church, not for the founding of particular seminaries and religious houses...”[/color]
Well, this makes no sense. No authorities cited. Just more absurdities ad nauseum fidelium.
--------------------------
You guys need to wake up: this isn't a decadent parlor game. This is about the entire teleology of the resistance against the modernists of the Johannine-Pauline anti-Church: the very reason why we are traditional Catholics is to preserve the Church as Christ established it, not according to "pet theories" which are not even well docuмented or scientifically precise.
You are doing the clergy who resist the modernists in the "New Order" no favors: rather, you are doing a great service to the polemicists who attack them and you are doing a good job in substantiating their claim that "sedevacantism" ultimately leads to the usurpation of Papal authority, whether at the individual level or at the societal level.
You have to be very careful. You are in serious peril of lapsing into heresy, if that has not happened already.
You need to consult the clergy before you embarrass them like this.
-
I forgot to mention again, that I do not intend to offend anyone or make them mad as I try to sort it out. I do not intent anyone to take my questions or the things I share as personal insults aimed at individuals. I do not not call any individual on this forum out or pretend to know their motives. I try very hard to do this, for what I would think are obvious reasons, charity, civility and the like. We all must pray for a happy reunion in eternity. This will all get sorted out for each of us, sooner or later, individually and collectively.
I pray for you all as I hope you do me.
AMDG!!!
-
A bishop appointed to a diocese, but not yet consecrated, possesses jurisdiction; contrariwise, a bishop already consecrated, but not yet established over a diocese, lacks jurisdiction.
When he speaks of “a bishop not yet consecrated” is he saying “not yet consecrated a bishop”? I’m not sure how a bishop is a bishop before being consecrated such. I suppose he could be appointed as one and given jurisdiction first and then consecrated to formalize it.
The appointment to an office confers jurisdiction. You are failing to see the distinction between an appointment to an office in the Church and an episcopal consecration.
Thanks SJB. I am aware of that distinction.
When but I was trying to figure out how he was using the term "consecrated". A bishop not yet consecrated?
I was thinking of it as in "a priest not yet ordainded" or "a couple not yet married". Not into regards to the distinction between being consecrated a bishop and appointed to an office. I have learned that distinction.
-
I forgot to mention again, that I do not intend to offend anyone or make them mad as I try to sort it out. I do not intent anyone to take my questions or the things I share as personal insults aimed at individuals. I do not not call any individual on this forum out or pretend to know their motives. I try very hard to do this, for what I would think are obvious reasons, charity, civility and the like. We all must pray for a happy reunion in eternity. This will all get sorted out for each of us, sooner or later, individually and collectively.
I pray for you all as I hope you do me.
AMDG!!!
You posted this twice today.
Once again, you are repeating your incorrigible behavioral patterns.
I have been trying to follow the same advice. Let our posts be ruled by logic rather than emotion, judgmentalness and prejudice. I see the proper attitude in most, like SJB, who states his case plainly, whether you agree with him or not. But there is one or two who seem to just live for the cheap shots, to undermine certain posters, merely for the sake of undermining certain posters. If forums are to be productive, then we should argue to the point rather than to the person. Let the discussions be sober and intellectual instead of petty. I’ll try to set the tone by not responding the next time someone tries to undermine the points I share by trying to slam me down through name-calling, accusations or by judging my subjective motives for sharing things.
I really will try. I actually hope I get slammed for just this post, so I can merit more. I have partially and completely wasted my opportunities for merit in the past (though at the time, and even now, I believe I at least could have been legitimately trying to show people their lack of charity in the hopes that they would rectify that for the sake of their own souls). I’m at the point now where I like it when I get a “dislike” which is a step in the right direction. I enjoy being disagreed with, and this has not been a problem with me even in the past, when someone sticks to the point rather than undermines the person, I think I’m ready to let the cheap shots pass without saying anything now as well. We’ll see. I hope at least one person does take a shot at me personally, so I can see where I am right now.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Miscellany/JesusMagister.jpg)
Humility does not know itself, much less does it praise itself to the detriment of others.
From the work of Rev. Fr. Charles J. Callan, O. P., The Parables of Christ: With Notes for Preaching and Meditation (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1940), here is a commentary upon the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, the narration of which constitutes the Gospel lesson for the Mass of the tenth Sunday after Pentecost.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican1.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican2.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican3.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican4.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican5.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican6.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican7.jpg)
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Sacred%20Texts/More%20Sacred%20Texts/PhariseeandPublican8.jpg)
-
Has anyone had the experience of looking up to someone and thinking the best of him only to be disappointed in him over and over again until you finally realize they are not what they are cracked up to be? I have experienced this in the traditional movement especially. It can be disappointing when the one you look up to, in all practicality, thinks of you as his enemy, at least based upon his actions and words towards and about you. We see this when people will go out of their way to give you a dirty look, or repute motives to your actions that you have not even dreamed of, such as staged objections such as the brothers Dimond would post. I have stated over and over again that I am not sure which side is correct but the objection is hurled.
Quote:
Gee, a debate with a friend with whom you agree, and with whom you have been single-minded and incorrigible in serious theological error: sounds like Pete n' Mike Dimond debating each other...
Hmm. Perhaps such argumentation would be helpful to those with a higher intellectual capacity than that of my own.
Regardless I refrain from lowering myself to responding in kind and with the charitableness in which it was intended though the temptation has certainly been provided. Nor will I try to correct the person charitably, not because I would claim that would be like casting pearls before swine or dogs, but simply because past tries at the same have failed miserably.
I have heard it said that forums can be "a pathway to Hell". This could certainly be the case if it takes away from your prayer life, authentic study of the faith and your duties to family and job. It can also be true if you lower yourself to the level of your attackers who are intent on "making you look bad" or "disreputable" through all sorts of strange and absurd in the extreme allegations in the hopes that one of them stick.
Just to clarify, without lowering myself to the level of my attacker, I legitimately post objections to Griff.
I objected to him in regards to feeneyism, una cuм, and his thesis regarding the retirement of Paul 6 in 1964. He convinced me about the errors of feeneyism, gave me pause regarding his Paul 6 theory which I cannot refute and made very serious and valid points in regards to the una cuм controversy. Up until this point I was not sure either way on jurisdiction, but after reading his latest on the issue I can say that I am leaning on his side now. His arguments stand on their own merits; personal attacks from those who disagree do not sway me to his side but the truth of the visible apostolicity of the Catholic Church. No "unexplainable mystery", the Church is right where she appears to be, with our traditional Bishops.
His series on ordinary jurisdiction:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htm
Shows that the traditional Catholic bishops were consecrated by bishops with the apostolic mission and is in accordance with the doctrine that they at least have the legal or implicit will of the Holy See to the point where denying this, insisting that the apostolic Church is in the NO or the woods, does far more harm to the doctrine, even on the face of it, than forcing the doctrine to mean that the Church has vanished. Defending what seems obvious, that our traditional bishops are the visible hierarchy with every bit as much authority that bishops had between interregnums of the past (even though, in our case, no pope explicitly gave his approval) would seem obvious, that our Catholic bishops are Catholic bishops in every sense of the word.
The apostolic mission has been handed on, at the very least, with the legal and or implicit will of the Roman See and as pointed out by Griff, even more than that:
But back in 1964 the organization Paul VI ran was still the Church, and the relevant decisions and changes made in public cooperation with all the nominal Church leaders (in the Vatican II Council), their personal interior status is not relevant to the legality of the opening Vatican II docuмents. But once again, it is Lumen Gentium, the last identifiable official docuмent of the Catholic Church, the one that defined the Vatican-run organization as being not the Church but merely some other sort of body within portions of which portions of the Church would do Her subsisting (thereby defining into existence a new and parallel organization), that also comes into play here.
It is now time for me to talk about a different part of Lumen Gentium than that which I have previously expounded upon in various places. I refer to paragraphs 21 (second part) and 22 (first part). Let us start with what the paragraphs actually say (I include the first part of 21 lest anyone accuse me of quoting out of context):
21. In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not absent from the gathering of His high priests, but above all through their excellent service He is preaching the word of God to all nations, and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who believe, by their paternal functioning. He incorporates new members in His Body by a heavenly regeneration, and finally by their wisdom and prudence He directs and guides the People of the New Testament in their pilgrimage toward eternal happiness. These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord's flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God, and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.
For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person. Therefore it pertains to the bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal body by means of the sacrament of Orders.
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecuмenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
The second part of 22 and beyond goes more specifically into the topic of the role of bishops with respect to the pope in the context of ecuмenical councils, to which the first part of 22 (quoted above) begins to set the tone. Again, I call attention most specifically to the parts I have put in bold, which state that the bare fact of an episcopal consecration of itself is sufficient to convey not only the sacrament and power of orders which is in itself an office of providing sanctification to souls, but also with it the offices of teaching and governing! All further conditions (apart from what is intrinsically necessary per the doctrine (as referenced by the phrase "can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college") are hereby removed. That is to say, the sum total of all the positive law which the Church has developed over the course of the centuries has been, with the official promulgation of this docuмent, entirely swept away! And in its place there is the new positive law that the granting of jurisdiction, of the canonical mission, is itself to be united to the conferring of the final degree of Holy Orders. So now, the bare fact of an episcopal consecration alone is there decreed to be sufficient to convey the apostolic mission of the Church, together with all manner of jurisdiction, faculties, etc. as is needed to complete the Divine Mission.
And just in case someone might be contemplating some sort of objection to the effect that the existing procedures (having the pope personally appoint and approve each bishop) are merely being "assumed" or "presumed" in this, one must first note the wording that makes it clear that the consecration is enough, without reservation or condition, save that which ties to a bishop's doctrinal need for his authority to come, whether explicitly and personally, or implicitly and legally only, from the pope. That they truly intended to tear out all of the Church's positive law that further regulated and tightened up the process of selecting and appointing bishops is also clear from their "ecuмenical" intention to regard the separated Eastern schismatic churches as being their equal (the other "lung" of the Church!) and of having their own true and life-giving jurisdiction over their flocks. Such steps taken as the infamous Balamand agreement would be unacceptable and impossible unless they truly believed the separated and schismatic and popeless-by-design East Orthodox to be their actual peers and brothers and co-workers in the Lord's harvest.
---
The contrast between those I debate (yes legitimately, though I thought that was obvious before the strange accusation was hurled) with, who actually know me, and one person on this forum, who does not know me but pretends to know my inner motives on things is incredible. It was my hope that one who reputes himself to be an authentic Catholic could act as one during exchanges, but I indeed have been proven wrong on such a hope as he instead prefers personal attacks along with, and sometimes, instead of, charitable constructive criticism.
If you have any doubt watch for his response to this, and read it carefully, look for charitable “corrections” and notice the personal attacks and see which of his own words falls into which category. I will not do this myself to prove myself correct. I will probably not read his response which shows the merit of winning souls with honey instead of vinegar. He will suggest that he is no worse than me perhaps, but I have been and am being as charitable as possible in my dealings. I do not get personally angry at others who disagree with me on this forum. I do not accuse them of strange things such as being like the Dimonds or suggest anyone is inventing objections in order to appear to disagree when they really do not. Constructive debate does not encompass guessing the inner motives of others. This should be obvious. You argue to the point not to the man. Arguing to the point is saying “I believe you are wrong because of this, this and this”. Arguing to the man is saying “You are wrong because you are you.”
I have lived by the axiom "hope for the best but expect the worst" so you will not be disappointed. And never to put your hope in any living human being but I catch myself expecting more from traditional Catholics, a vast majority live up to that expectation, but sometimes, those who appear to be "the best of the best" fall far short and make the N.O.'s, in regards to basic civility, look like the greatest Saints in the history of the Church.
Here is a response to Griff (starting under quoted section below), where I read in the response from the accusation hurler (not in this forum, because I tend to avoid reading emotional tirades and personal attacks) that I was staging false objections as the Dimond's would. This appears to be an attack that appeals to the emotions as being labeled in the category of the Dimonds is not intended to be a complement by any stretch.
Some would say to such accusation hurlers "Good luck because that is all you are running on.” But I admit that such accusation hurlers could be in a state of sanctifying grace but merely overly-emotional and unable to deal with those who dare to disagree with them. Or perhaps they think they get a point across better by personal attacks. One can only guess I suppose.
Again you have seen how Griff has set me straight with charitable corrections in our debate. My other closest friends and writers have done the same.
Quote:
> Actually, Mr. Cain will indeed be in trouble once the clergy get wind of what you guys are actually doing. I hope you understand the serious ramifications of this, and how much you are damaging the credibility of DailyCatholic.org.
Actually, “they” (the clergy) already know what Michael Cain is publishing and they are to a man one and all OK with it. Otherwise, he (and we through him, our ourselves directly) would hear of it from them.
It’s very simple, and I didn’t need Lumen Gentium or anything else to know this much as I made these observations back well before that discovery, and this is the root of the hope that I have. It is not arrogance but Faith. I believe:
1) That God made certainly promises regarding His Church,
2) That the promises that God made to His Church are practical realities realized in actual ecclesial persons,
3) That such persons can be found (as expected) and are found,
4) In the traditional Catholic communities and orders and congregations.
It is therefore the basic dogmas of Faith that something at least very much along the lines of what I have since discovered absolutely has to be true.
Ergo, all attempts to define away the promises of God, or to deny that any discoverable reality need actually follow from them, or to deprive one and all of the only possible authentically Catholic expressions of the Faith as hierarchy, can only amount to mere sophistries calculated to destroy the Faith of anyone who aspires to follow the true Faith seriously.
These sophistries (as I have examined one and all in as much detail as has ever been publicly presented) have one and all proven to be fully on the level of the sophistries by which Feeney followers endeavor to prove by their copious misquotes that all persons who have died not baptized in water have gone to Hell. They may look convincing to the uninitiated, but by their nature can have no substance without denying the Faith itself. And even here shows once again, none of them really have anything to say. I seem to have been the first of their little group to actually look up and read Van Noort in detail and find out what is really said instead of what one might otherwise have gleaned from any number of carefully selected quotes made so as to ascribe to him the very contrary of what he teaches.
-
His series on ordinary jurisdiction:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htm
Shows that the traditional Catholic bishops were consecrated by bishops with the apostolic mission and is in accordance with the doctrine that they at least have the legal or implicit will of the Holy See to the point where denying this, insisting that the apostolic Church is in the NO or the woods, does far more harm to the doctrine, even on the face of it, than forcing the doctrine to mean that the Church has vanished. Defending what seems obvious, that our traditional bishops are the visible hierarchy with every bit as much authority that bishops had between interregnums of the past (even though, in our case, no pope explicitly gave his approval) would seem obvious, that our Catholic bishops are Catholic bishops in every sense of the word.
You have been shown this is incorrect. The author, who is nobody himself, cites no sources and contradicts all known sources. In spite of this, you forge ahead. Your "enemies" are merely pointing out your errors.
-
His series on ordinary jurisdiction:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htm
Shows that the traditional Catholic bishops were consecrated by bishops with the apostolic mission and is in accordance with the doctrine that they at least have the legal or implicit will of the Holy See to the point where denying this, insisting that the apostolic Church is in the NO or the woods, does far more harm to the doctrine, even on the face of it, than forcing the doctrine to mean that the Church has vanished. Defending what seems obvious, that our traditional bishops are the visible hierarchy with every bit as much authority that bishops had between interregnums of the past (even though, in our case, no pope explicitly gave his approval) would seem obvious, that our Catholic bishops are Catholic bishops in every sense of the word.
You have been shown this is incorrect. The author, who is nobody himself, cites no sources and contradicts all known sources. In spite of this, you forge ahead. Your "enemies" are merely pointing out your errors.
Show me "incorrect" with Van Noort or Pius XII, not with Lefebvre or Castro De-Mayer.
Again I don't deny the doctrine.
BTW - Can you post The Four Marks article by Griff here? The one he did on the Hierarchy in the latest issue. So the readers can see for themselves and not just take your word for it?
Do you deny that Kathleen has her articles vetted by good clergy?
What do you think of his article? Should it have been trashed even though it is "obviusly wrong"?
-
BTW - Can you post The Four Marks article by Griff here? The one he did on the Hierarchy in the latest issue. So the readers can see for themselves and not just take your word for it?
Why don't you post it?
-
BTW - Can you post The Four Marks article by Griff here? The one he did on the Hierarchy in the latest issue. So the readers can see for themselves and not just take your word for it?
Why don't you post it?
I no longer subscribe, or get the free issues I used to get. Griff shared a snippit of the article with me. I'd like to see the whole thing and also see what, parts, if any, you disagree with.
-
Okay, so I read the whole thread, and now it's most evident that what a bunch of
laymen pretending to be theologians have to say about ordinary jurisdiction is
pretty much a waste of time, with a few exceptions.
The principal exception being Hobbledehoy, who not only provides an ostensibly
nonstop stream of excerpts from reputable pre-Conciliar Catholic publications,
but also has the humility to not interpret them for everyone, lest he exceeds his
own capacity to do so properly. Thank you, Hobbles!
Nonetheless, it has provided a few answers, albeit insufficient answers.
Lesson learned ................. sort of.....