Author Topic: Theological Sources  (Read 7645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
  • Reputation: +1931/-4
  • Gender: Male
Theological Sources
« Reply #120 on: April 12, 2011, 07:08:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So do you believe this law is one that epieikeia can never apply? Is that right?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #121 on: April 12, 2011, 07:36:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, you're saying that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to "illicitly consecrate" priests/bishops, but that the post-Vatican II "Popes" are not wrong to deny the Catholic Faith?  Kind of reminds of the "We were just following orders"-type mentality that is so typical of Novus Ordo neo-cons?  Is not divine law above canon law???  Are we not supposed to keep the One and Triune God's commandments?  How about the "You shall have no other gods before me"?  Sorry, but your "logic" just does not cut it; maybe in the Roman Empire, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, etc., but not here.  I am certainly not buying it.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #122 on: April 12, 2011, 08:22:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    Quote from: SJB
    So do you believe this law is one that epieikeia can never apply? Is that right?


    Well, I don't see the justification for consecrating and ordaining illicitly. Keep this in mind: In DZ 960 we learn that those “called by the people” as priests and bishops, or those who “by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves and robbers…’”


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

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #123 on: April 12, 2011, 09:02:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does a proper use of epieikeia involve temerity?

    If used properly, the act is not illicit. Again, you appear to be at odds with the entire concept of epieikeia.

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

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #124 on: April 13, 2011, 07:00:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:

    Quote
    If anyone says…that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema,” (DZ 967, 960)



    Archbishop Lefebvre was an Ecclesiastical authority.


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6019
    • Reputation: +3488/-329
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #125 on: April 13, 2011, 07:33:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: Hermenegild
    I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:

    Quote
    If anyone says…that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema,” (DZ 967, 960)



    Archbishop Lefebvre was an Ecclesiastical authority.


    He was Archbishop of Dakar when Pius XII died. So i guess a 'sede' would argue that his jurisdiction was limited to Dakar.

    The SSPX would say that he was a Titular bishop from 1970 onwards. That would mean he had no jurisdiction.

    Some have argued that he lost all at Vatican II.

    In short he did not have the authority.


    I think you meant to say, VaticanII lost all authority.  Some have argued that point  very well.  

    Perhaps because Divine Law supercedes Canon Law.  

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #126 on: April 13, 2011, 07:43:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:

    Quote
    If anyone says…that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema,” (DZ 967, 960)



    You're doing a dance here Herme. Please explain how the quote from Trent negates epieikeia in this case? McHugh and Callan was apparently unaware of this.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #127 on: April 13, 2011, 07:57:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: Hermenegild
    I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:

    Quote
    If anyone says…that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema,” (DZ 967, 960)



    Archbishop Lefebvre was an Ecclesiastical authority.


    He was Archbishop of Dakar when Pius XII died. So i guess a 'sede' would argue that his jurisdiction was limited to Dakar.

    The SSPX would say that he was a Titular bishop from 1970 onwards. That would mean he had no jurisdiction.

    Some have argued that he lost all at Vatican II.

    In short he did not have the authority.


    He was an ordained Bishop, therefore, he could ordain priests to the episcopate.  The highest law of the Church is as follows:

    Can. 1752 In cases of transfer the prescripts of can. 1747 are to be applied, canonical equity is to be observed, and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #128 on: April 13, 2011, 12:28:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    I really think it's your turn to offer some explaining.

    Why are you not anathematized by this canon?

    Quote
    At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act.  Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn.  For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.


    I've already addressed this issue. You are reading this in a nonsensical way. If a man is excused from the precept, he doesn't need to claim he's granted a capacity to do what he does. It merely excuses the lack of capacity. Necessity may dictate a priest absolve even if he has no capacity to do so. The excusing of this lack of capacity is not a granting of capacity.  
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #129 on: April 13, 2011, 08:37:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    What is the necessity? That's what I would like you to explain please.

    Why should we accept that he is excused?


    He is approached by the Faithful for Sacraments to which they have a right. He provides them because they are requested. YOU don't need to accept this action. I think some may be able to see how your position is no different than that of dogmatic sedeplentists and dogmatic sedevacantists.

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


     

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