« Reply #181 on: December 04, 2019, 11:38:51 AM »
0
0
Dear Decem Rationis, Is this text from Rev. Fr. Stanislaus Woywod in his Commentary on the Code of Canon Law helpful?
“210. 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. If some college has received the right to elect the bishop, Canon 321 shall be observed, which requires the absolute majority of votes of all those who have the right to vote. (Canon 329.)
213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, 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. (Canon 332.)” The Popes sometimes give some "College" of Bishops the right to elect a Bishop. Yet, even such a candidate will need to be "instituted" by the Pope before he becomes the "lawful Bishop of a vacant diocese".
When does a man become a Successor of Peter? When he succeeds to the Chair of St. Peter. So too a man becomes a Successor to the Apostles when he succeeds to a chair or see of one of the Apostles - i.e. to a bishopric or diocese imho.
As the Council of Trent says, and as Pope Pius VI explains in the Encyclical Charitas mentioned earlier, the Pope has as a proper right of his own office, the power to appoint Bishops. The Popes used to delegate that power habitually to both Metropolitans and Patriarchs in earlier times. But now, "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.)" In other words, the Popes have now reserved their power only to themselves.
From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius06/p6charit.htm It may still happen that a Pope confirms those consecrated by a mere Bishop, but only his confirmation would make them Successors. Up until then, the episcopal see would remain vacant.
Edit - see also, Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra: "We commanded that a synod composed exclusively of bishops elect the patriarch. However, We forbade the man elected to be enthroned until he received a letter of confirmation from the Apostolic See. We ordered bishops to be elected in the following way: all the bishops of the province were to gather in a synod and recommend three suitable churchmen to the Apostolic See. If it were not possible for all the bishops to come to the synod, the recommendation could be made by a synod of at least three diocesan bishops together with the patriarch, if those absent indicated their triple recommendation in writing. When this is done, the Roman Pontiff will choose one of those recommended and put him in charge of the vacant see."
Xavier,Thanks for your reply. My apologies for not responding sooner. One reason why I was waiting to see if you responded to Laudislaus’s statement that indicates that some theologians would indicate that jurisdiction would be supplied by the Church so that bishops consecrated by other bishops in the absence of a pontiff would have jurisdiction such that apostolicity of the Church continued. The main question at issue concerns this question I had posed to you:Also, why does it have to be an ordinary of a see or a diocese for their to be ongoing apostolicity?
I asked for authority for that proposition. Again, I think you have not provided that. At best you provided citations that you could build your argument from by inference (rather loose if you ask me), but you have by no means established a foundation to support your assertion (which other Catholics here challenge) that it is of the faith that apostolic succession requires the existence of an ordinary appointed by a true pope. You say:The Popes used to delegate that power habitually to both Metropolitans and Patriarchs in earlier times.
This amounts to, in the context of our discussion, the claim that the selection of ordinaries who were successors of the apostles by other “bishops” and not the pope was “habitually” delegated. Again, where is the authority for that? And “habitually” suggests anyway that the power to transmit that apostolic succession to other men was thus a power that does indeed rest or vest in the offices of “Metropolitans and Patriarchs” as a result of immemorial custom and divine Tradition. Again, sorry for the delay.DR
Logged
Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins"
Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
Topic: Sedevacantism is the only explanation (Read 6638 times)