Author Topic: Theological Sources (Read 8581 times)

SJB · « **Reply #120 on:** April 12, 2011, 07:08:26 AM »

So do you believe this law is one that epieikeia can never apply? Is that right?

Jehanne · « **Reply #121 on:** April 12, 2011, 07:36:34 AM »

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, nαzι Germany, etc., but not here. I am certainly not buying it.

SJB · « **Reply #122 on:** April 12, 2011, 08:22:32 AM »

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?

SJB · « **Reply #123 on:** April 12, 2011, 09:02:40 AM »

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.

Jehanne · « **Reply #124 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:00:32 AM »

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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #125 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:33:27 AM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #126 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:43:11 AM »

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.

Jehanne · « **Reply #127 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:57:29 AM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #128 on:** April 13, 2011, 12:28:37 PM »

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.

SJB · « **Reply #129 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:37:06 PM »

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.