Author Topic: The impending death of the Pius XII bishops (Read 2391 times)

Nishant · « **on:** March 19, 2015, 10:14:34 AM »

It is defined Catholic dogma that St. Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy. Because the Apostolic succession and the Petrine succession are inseparable, the necessary consequence of the indefinite cessation of the Petrine succession means the Church will cease to be Apostolic when every bishop appointed to office by the last Pope dies. The Apostolic succession, inseparable from the Petrine succession, will terminate.

Quote from: Dom Gueranger, St. Peter's Chair

Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic Tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being ' "called to a share of their own solicitude" ... To the end of time. Jesus Christ is the founder of the episcopate; it is the Holy Ghost who establishes bishops to rule the Church; but the mission and the institution, which assign the pastor his flock, and the flock its pastor, these are given by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost through the ministry of Peter and his successors.

It is commonly taught by theologians that

1. Only the Pope can appoint bishops to office i.e. Ordinaries.
2. The Church can never cease to have at least a few Ordinaries.

In L’Église et sa Divine Constitution, Dom Adrien Grea writes, “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.” The Catechism Explained by Spirago-Clarke explain "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope."

In Quartus Supra, Pope Pius IX states, "The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors." Woywod writes, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope ... Every candidate to the episcopate ... needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff."

This poses a problem for those who say Pope Pius XII was the last Pope. Almost all the Ordinaries appointed by the Holy Father have died. Only about 7 are still alive, and most of these have resigned their office. Their death in a matter of years is assured. When these bishops die, the Church will have no more Ordinaries appointed to office by a Pope, which is impossible. If that is true, the keys of the Church will have been lost forever, and the Catholic Church will have failed in Her divine mission. How do sedevacantists who say that Pope Pius XII was the last Pope explain this?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2015, 11:14:07 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Only about 7 are still alive, and most of these have resigned their office. Their death in a matter of years is assured.

And the resolution of the crisis before then is also assured. In fact, Francis ironically just made one of these a Cardinal this past February ... despite his being past retirement age. Start this thread again after these have all passed away.

Either that or you're missing a piece of the puzzle ... e.g. the Eastern Rite bishops. There's also the mandate given to Archbishop Thuc. There's also the notion that the Church can supply jurisdiction. There are a lot of possibilities here and this is no slam dunk argument by any means. I'll call to your attention the prophecy made by St. Nicholas of Flue, since you're fond of private revelation, that the Apostolic Succession would almost appear to have ceased; many Catholic prophecies refer to an Antipope in the end times.

What you keep ignoring, Nishant, is the problem on the other side, the infallible safety and overall reliability of the Magisterium which is a direct attribute of the Church's indefectibility. I grant that your arguments need to be carefully pondered, but the problems with your R&R position need to be considered and not ignored either. In no way can a Catholic EVER damage his faith in any serious way by submitting to the Magisterium. I've repeatedly cited the work of Msgr. Fenton on this subject, and you have never addressed it.

If I believed, as you do, that the NO hierarchy is legitimate, I would submit to them unconditionally and accept Vatican II. God can never blame me for that. I would rather be wrong with the Magisterium than right with Archbishop Lefebvre. But, absit!, Nishant, that God would ever allow one to go off the rails from Catholicism by docile submission to the Magisterium. You keep raising the 57-year problem, Nishant, regarding a material defection of legitimate authority, but you ignore what you posit, a FORMAL DEFECTION of the Magisterium. I cannot accept this. I would rather believe that pigs can fly than that the Magisterium would lie. It's either sede-doubtism or else full communion with the Holy See. Non datur tertium. for a Catholic.

What is the POINT of the papacy, Nishant? It's through the papacy that we have our rule of faith; Our Lord established it as the ROCK FOUNDATION for the Church. But if an Ecuмenical Council can lead the entire Church into error, Nishant, the foundation is nothing but sand. Who cares if there's a material continuity of the papacy when you reject the continuity of the very formal raison d'etre for the papacy??? Nobody.

And that's the core problem with your Universal Acceptance position also. If you read the theologians, they say that the REASON this holds is because the Church can never adhere to a FALSE RULE OF FAITH. But the entire Traditional Catholc world has REJECTED the V2 Popes as a rule of faith, so that their acceptance of some material occupancy by these characters means absolutely nothing. It's like putting up the old picture of Francis in the vestibule but pretty much ignoring everything that comes from his "authentic" teaching. It's utterly meaningless.

Finally, Archbishop Lefebvre, and many, many R&R types of priests have stated that it's POSSIBLE that these V2 claimants COULD be non-popes. But then they cannot believe their legitimacy with the certainty of faith, which would preclude any possibility whatsoever of the opposite. Constantly, they did not hold to the dogmatic fact of legitimacy for the V2 claimaints. Consequently, +Lefebvre was NOT a sedeplenist -- he was a sede-doubtist.

Come on, Nishant, do you REALLY REALLY believe with the certainty of faith that John Paul II is a saint? I don't.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2015, 03:44:36 AM »

When I think about the paucity if likely-validly ordained priests to dispense valid sacraments and valid bishops to ordain them it gives me pause: How does one reconcile the "no valid Popes post-Pius XII with "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" of Matt 16:18 when the are 7 Pius XII bishops and fewer every year...?

It's an honest question.

Shall we be like Japan? With no clergy or Eucharist for hundreds of years?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:42:12 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

When I think about the paucity if likely-validly ordained priests to dispense valid sacraments and valid bishops to ordain them it gives me pause: How does one reconcile the "no valid Popes post-Pius XII with "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" of Matt 16:18 when the are 7 Pius XII bishops and fewer every year...?

It's an honest question.

Shall we be like Japan? With no clergy or Eucharist for hundreds of years?

How do you reconcile the defection of the Magisterium with "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"? I'm sorry, but the defection of the Magisterium posited by R&R is a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM than the vacancy of the Holy See. Who cares if the See is vacant if the See can actually lead the entire Church into error? In that case, you'd be better off if the See were vacant. Let's say that after Pius XII died no one was able to elect a pope. Wouldn't the Church be better off now? Decidedly so. So big whoop on your R&R papacy, a papacy which serves only to damage the faith.

Nishant · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:03:22 AM »

Agreed, Iuvenalis. If I remember correctly, there were 15 last year, 7 as of Jan. 2015, it probably isn't unrealistic to say there will be none in a couple of years. Texts like these "the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles", "as he sent apostles ... in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time" also indicate bishops in office, not merely Emeritus bishops.

Iuvenalis is not "R&R", Ladislaus, he is sedeprivationist, which even you are favorable to, and which I think is the best attempted response to the problem. Simple sedevacantists should at least ask themselves how the crisis is going to be resolved, not least because it will have to be these Ordinaries who have to pass the juridical declaration that there is no Pope before a new one can be elected. There is, therefore, on the part of one who is assured of the truth of 57 year sedevacantism and the perpetual succession consequences, an obligation to safeguard the hierarchy from a defection before it is too late.

Anyway, thanks for your lively response, yes I do believe in "infallible safety", it is not something unique to Msgr. Fenton, but taught by Cardinals Franzelin and Billot among countless others. A non-infallible Magisterial text is "infallibly safe" in the sense that it cannot, for example, explicitly formulate something heretical, while, as you admit, respectful questioning of non-infallible statements which seem to be contrary to Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching is accepted by theologians as a right of the faithful. We're not going to get anywhere if we discuss "R&R" issues in a thread about SV. Please start a thread with your criticisms/objections to R&R and we'll discuss them there. Lastly, Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished between a single Pope losing his office, and an interregnum spanning several decades, "the visibility of the Church is too necessary to Her existence for it to be possible for that visibility to disappear for decades."

Apostolicity is closely linked to visibility, as Gueranger puts it, "Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. "We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ... thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain/ gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this.. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source."Apostolicity, in other words, requires a visible line of succession going back to St. Peter and the Apostles, in order to distinguish the Church from the schismatic Greeks, the Protestants etc. If you have an alternate suggestion on how Apostolicity and visibility are preserved, please provide it.

Now, you cite private revelation, and you know I don't disagree. I've cited Catherine Emmerich's vision that "I saw what I believe to be all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound" and this is what I believe has happened, so yes, we can see that the hierarchy in large part has defected. Only a complete defection of the hierarchy is precluded by the divine promise, not that large sections of the Church cannot disappear.

misericordianos · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:26:32 AM »

Ladislaus wrote:

"Who cares if the See is vacant if the See can actually lead the entire Church into error? In that case, you'd be better off if the See were vacant. Let's say that after Pius XII died no one was able to elect a pope. Wouldn't the Church be better off now? Decidedly so. So big whoop on your R&R papacy, a papacy which serves only to damage the faith."

Absolutely right.

What good does having a pope do for us now? We’d be better off if he wasn’t pope.

The office will be the way to setting things right again through a future pope. Whether the seat if vacant or not now is something for arm chair theologians.

And as to hell prevailing: this thing ain’t over yet. :)

Histrionics · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2015, 04:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant
Only about 7 are still alive, and most of these have resigned their office. Their death in a matter of years is assured.

And the resolution of the crisis before then is also assured. In fact, Francis ironically just made one of these a Cardinal this past February ... despite his being past retirement age. Start this thread again after these have all passed away.

Either that or you're missing a piece of the puzzle ... e.g. the Eastern Rite bishops. There's also the mandate given to Archbishop Thuc. There's also the notion that the Church can supply jurisdiction. There are a lot of possibilities here and this is no slam dunk argument by any means. I'll call to your attention the prophecy made by St. Nicholas of Flue, since you're fond of private revelation, that the Apostolic Succession would almost appear to have ceased; many Catholic prophecies refer to an Antipope in the end times.

What you keep ignoring, Nishant, is the problem on the other side, the infallible safety and overall reliability of the Magisterium which is a direct attribute of the Church's indefectibility. I grant that your arguments need to be carefully pondered, but the problems with your R&R position need to be considered and not ignored either. In no way can a Catholic EVER damage his faith in any serious way by submitting to the Magisterium. I've repeatedly cited the work of Msgr. Fenton on this subject, and you have never addressed it.

If I believed, as you do, that the NO hierarchy is legitimate, I would submit to them unconditionally and accept Vatican II. God can never blame me for that. I would rather be wrong with the Magisterium than right with Archbishop Lefebvre. But, absit!, Nishant, that God would ever allow one to go off the rails from Catholicism by docile submission to the Magisterium. You keep raising the 57-year problem, Nishant, regarding a material defection of legitimate authority, but you ignore what you posit, a FORMAL DEFECTION of the Magisterium. I cannot accept this. I would rather believe that pigs can fly than that the Magisterium would lie. It's either sede-doubtism or else full communion with the Holy See. Non datur tertium. for a Catholic.

What is the POINT of the papacy, Nishant? It's through the papacy that we have our rule of faith; Our Lord established it as the ROCK FOUNDATION for the Church. But if an Ecuмenical Council can lead the entire Church into error, Nishant, the foundation is nothing but sand. Who cares if there's a material continuity of the papacy when you reject the continuity of the very formal raison d'etre for the papacy??? Nobody.

And that's the core problem with your Universal Acceptance position also. If you read the theologians, they say that the REASON this holds is because the Church can never adhere to a FALSE RULE OF FAITH. But the entire Traditional Catholc world has REJECTED the V2 Popes as a rule of faith, so that their acceptance of some material occupancy by these characters means absolutely nothing. It's like putting up the old picture of Francis in the vestibule but pretty much ignoring everything that comes from his "authentic" teaching. It's utterly meaningless.

Finally, Archbishop Lefebvre, and many, many R&R types of priests have stated that it's POSSIBLE that these V2 claimants COULD be non-popes. But then they cannot believe their legitimacy with the certainty of faith, which would preclude any possibility whatsoever of the opposite. Constantly, they did not hold to the dogmatic fact of legitimacy for the V2 claimaints. Consequently, +Lefebvre was NOT a sedeplenist -- he was a sede-doubtist.

Come on, Nishant, do you REALLY REALLY believe with the certainty of faith that John Paul II is a saint? I don't.

Most of these monstrous issues remain unanswered. These are far more serious than the potential 50+ year vacancy you keep trumpeting (especially since most sedevacantists don't insist that no one has jurisdiction currently anyway). Why do you keep insisting that an evil Church with it's evil laws and evil General Councils (impossible) is somehow preferable to an extended interregnum (INSANELY inconvenient however not incompatible with the Divine promises per se)? And Franzelin/Billot/Fenton's infallible safety just must somehow no longer apply despite giving it lip service (just like the recognized Pontiff's authority)?

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2015, 08:28:42 AM »

Well, the mark of Apostolicity, which is really what this is about, is not by any means an irrelevant consideration, even leaving aside its application and importance to other questions related to the sede vacante (e.g. Most theologians say the Ordinaries will have to pass the declaration, Theologians also teach if the Ordinaries agree in recognizing a man as Pope, that man is certainly Pope, so the question of who these Ordinaries are, and where formal Apostolic succession and ordinary jurisdiction continues in our day is not an insignificant one), here's an excerpt on why Apostolicity is the primary mark

Quote from: Brunsmann Preuss, Handbook of Fundamental Theology

The Apostolicity of the Church in her origin and teaching follows from the Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense ... The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. For the same reason she will never at any time lack the missio ordinaria and apostolica.

I will answer the questions about infallible safety, Histrionics, in detail in another new thread now.

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:37:29 AM »

Quote

The Apostolicity of the Church in her origin and teaching follows from the Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter.

True. Apostolicity is often overlooked but it is not a small matter. It is one of the marks of the True Church. Sedes tend to think that even if all of the bishops did fall into heresy that doesn't mean apostolic succession has been lost, (as long as there is a true bishop somewhere, which none of them, know who or where is he). This reasoning is false of course. Any sede should educate himself on the mark and requirements of Apostolicity. If a self proclaimed "Catholic" group, sect, cult, etc. cannot claim true and authentic Apostolicity (which requires communion with the Pope and where Jurisdiction is essential), then it cannot be the True Church of Christ. Simple.

Quote from: 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Apostolicity

“Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2015, 10:11:05 AM »

Cantarella, while I would not describe sedevacantists as a "sect" or a "cult", you are essentially correct about Apostolic succession. Apostolic sucession distinguishes the Catholic Church from the Protestants, and the Petrine succession and Roman primacy distinguishes the true Church from the Greek Orthodox. A non-sede recognizes Apostolic succession in the See of Peter itself, as well as in other bishops. A 57 year sede vacante risks robbing the Church of one of Her four marks. There are at least three questions any sede vacantist serious on Church restoration should ask,

1. Where are the Ordinaries appointed by the Pope, the hierarchy of bishops in episcopal office having formal Apostolic succession today? Are these bishops sufficiently visible as to constitute an evident line of succession from the Apostolic age to the present, capable of distinguishing the Church from the Protestants and the schismatic Greeks?

2. Do these bishops, however few they may be, recognize the Pope? If there were only a handful of Ordinaries in the world today, but all of them recognized the Pope, that would mean the Pope is infallibly Pope. "The Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ...This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined."

3. What are the chances of assembling these bishops in an imperfect general Council, which most theologians teach is that part of the Church that must make the juridical declaration that the Pope is a heretic and not Pope, before a new one can be elected?

Without these three considerations taken into account carefully, sedevacantism brings us to a dead end, practically and doctrinally, that risks leading the souls who adhere to it into despair. Who these bishops are, where they are, how they can be contacted, is a real question for serious sedevacantists to tackle, not least because you need to assemble these bishops in an Ecuмenical Council before they cease to exist. Sebastian Smith says on this question, "Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an Ecuмenical Council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”