Author Topic: The Papal Mandate (Read 3951 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #30 on:** May 02, 2014, 02:22:15 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Nishant
Sorry, but no, both theologians and the Popes teach that no bishop receives power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but only through the Successor of Peter.

Quote from: Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII, quoting Pope St. Leo the Great
"If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it" (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2).

Quote from: Church of the Word Incarnate
The consequence of this doctrine is that as time went on the jurisdictional power would devolve differently on the Pope and on the other bishops. On the Pope it is bestowed immediately by Christ as soon as he is validly elected. 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.

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. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form

Just to be clear. You deny the apostles received it directly from Christ?

Bravo, LoT! You really caught Nishant with his pants down. You have just given him a dose of his own medicine. What you have done is taken a categorical statement of his out of context and requiring distinctions to be made and then applied it blindly to a situation which it was not meant to be applied. That is what Nishant is doing with his quotes. Everything he has posted is very true when the Pope is living. But he is trying to stretch it so that it will apply also during a long interregnum. But history has already proven him to be mistaken.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #31 on:** May 02, 2014, 02:28:28 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
I do not deny that the Bishops await ratification from a living Pontiff. But I believe they can function as such as happened during past interregnums.

No, in the meanwhile, they must expressly disavow any claim to office and jurisdiction. Only the confirmation of the Roman Pontiff in future will enable them to possess office and jurisdiction validly, it is at that time that they will be appointed to office.

If you can find any historical evidence that shows that the 13th century appointments during the 3-year interregnum were not valid and not legitimate and not conferring ordinary jurisdiction (at least for the duration of the interregnum) then I will accept your interpretation.

SJB · « **Reply #32 on:** May 02, 2014, 08:11:39 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Nishant
1. Yes, it is a doctrine of the Church that the Papal mandate is necessary, not merely as a condition, but as a cause that effects the conferral of episcopal jurisdiction.

That might be slightly misleading. We know for a fact that bishops were lawfully appointed during the 3-years-long interregnum of the 13th century. (cf. the previously posted letter of Bishop Pivarunas.) Those bishops exercised ordinary jurisdiction before the next pope was elected. And yet at that time the Papal mandate was already required. So while the Papal mandate is necessary, that does not mean that it is an absolute necessity. You could say that it is a necessity of precept. However, it is an absolute necessity that every legitimate bishop be free from public heresy. According to Canon 188.4 the office is lost even before the declaration from the Church. So it is absolutely impossible for a public heretic to exercise ordinary jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. A public heretic cannot bind the conscience of any member of the Catholic Church. In summary, it is possible for a Catholic bishop to exercise ordinary jurisdiction without a Papal mandate but it is not at all possible for a public heretic to exercise ordinary jurisdiction.

Quote from: Spirago Clarke, Catechism Explained
"The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope."

That is just a catechism which is to say that it is not necessarily as theologically precise as a theology manual. What it says is true but not in an absolute sense. We know this because of what happened in the 13th century.

The problem is that no traditional bishop even claims to be appointed to an Episcopal See by anybody.

Ambrose · « **Reply #33 on:** May 02, 2014, 10:27:12 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Nishant
1. Yes, it is a doctrine of the Church that the Papal mandate is necessary, not merely as a condition, but as a cause that effects the conferral of episcopal jurisdiction.

That might be slightly misleading. We know for a fact that bishops were lawfully appointed during the 3-years-long interregnum of the 13th century. (cf. the previously posted letter of Bishop Pivarunas.) Those bishops exercised ordinary jurisdiction before the next pope was elected. And yet at that time the Papal mandate was already required. So while the Papal mandate is necessary, that does not mean that it is an absolute necessity. You could say that it is a necessity of precept. However, it is an absolute necessity that every legitimate bishop be free from public heresy. According to Canon 188.4 the office is lost even before the declaration from the Church. So it is absolutely impossible for a public heretic to exercise ordinary jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. A public heretic cannot bind the conscience of any member of the Catholic Church. In summary, it is possible for a Catholic bishop to exercise ordinary jurisdiction without a Papal mandate but it is not at all possible for a public heretic to exercise ordinary jurisdiction.

Quote from: Spirago Clarke, Catechism Explained
"The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope."

That is just a catechism which is to say that it is not necessarily as theologically precise as a theology manual. What it says is true but not in an absolute sense. We know this because of what happened in the 13th century.

The problem is that no traditional bishop even claims to be appointed to an Episcopal See by anybody.

I may add, if they did make this claim and attempted to exercise jurisdiction without a legitimate mission it would be schismatic.

Nishant · « **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2014, 05:17:50 AM »

Hi Clemens Maria. Sorry, but you are wrong. The mistake you make is that you are trying to fit the traditional doctrine into the current situation. Rather than do this, first of all go to Catholic sources for yourself (this includes Catholic theologians and Popes explaining the historical situations, and how the Roman Pontiffs have given the mandate to local churches or metropolitans, dependent on their later confirmations, before Trent), and convince yourself of what the traditional teaching is, then come back and apply it to the state you think the Church is in today.

Quote from: Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution

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.”

This is not doubtful doctrine. The Pope alone, by the constitution of the Church, either himself or others to whom he has given the power, can establish bishops.

Pius IX already explains for us that "the Roman Pontiffs confirmed them all by letter in such a way that at the same time the Pontiffs appointed them and placed them over their churches." If you read the source I cited, you'll see there the explanation of the thirteenth century circuмstances you mention as well. At this time, the Popes expressly delegated the power to appoint bishops to local churches, "Those who are immediately subject to the Roman pontiff shall, to obtain confirmation of their office, present themselves personally to him, if this can conveniently be done, or send suitable persons through whom a careful inquiry can be made about the process of the election and the persons elected. In this way, on the strength of the pontiff's informed judgment, they may finally enter into the fullness of their office, when there is no impediment in canon law"

Pius XII very clearly explains, "But if, as happens at times, some 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" also affirming following Pius IX that the older arrangement is no longer valid because the Roman Pontiffs no longer delegate to anyone what remains their proper and ordinary power by divine right.

Pius VI explains in Charitas that this power has now returned to its origin and does not in any way belong to others but resides solely in the Apostolic See. When the Pope has not expressly delegated its use to others, no bishop can presume to enter into episcopal office. He who attempts sacrilegiously to do this is that thief and robber who enters not by the gate into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, according to the Papal teaching. Of these, "Therefore, instead of accepting him as their pastor, the people should reject him with abhorrence as an intruder."

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2014, 10:51:07 PM »

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2014, 10:53:41 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

The Pope alone, by the constitution of the Church, either himself or others to whom he has given the power, can establish bishops.

So others besides the Pope can have the power to establish bishops. Correct? Yes or no?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2014, 11:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution

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.”

I bet Dom Adrian Gréa was a very intelligent man and he probably knew that the Pope could authorize others to establish bishops. And yet, I trust that you have quoted him accurately. That can only mean one thing. He was not intending for his quote to address the situation where the Pope gave the power to establish bishops to others. Yet you continue to insist that only the strict interpretation is correct. i.e. that a bishop can NEVER be established by anyone but the Pope. You are proven wrong by your own quotes!

SJB · « **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2014, 11:38:10 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution
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.”

I bet Dom Adrian Gréa was a very intelligent man and he probably knew that the Pope could authorize others to establish bishops. And yet, I trust that you have quoted him accurately. That can only mean one thing. He was not intending for his quote to address the situation where the Pope gave the power to establish bishops to others. Yet you continue to insist that only the strict interpretation is correct. i.e. that a bishop can NEVER be established by anyone but the Pope. You are proven wrong by your own quotes!

Well, jurisdiction is attached to an office and I don't know of any traditional bishop who claims to hold an office. This would be a See established prior to the crisis. I'm not suggesting they should do this, only that they have not done this.

Ambrose · « **Reply #39 on:** May 04, 2014, 12:26:39 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution
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.”

I bet Dom Adrian Gréa was a very intelligent man and he probably knew that the Pope could authorize others to establish bishops. And yet, I trust that you have quoted him accurately. That can only mean one thing. He was not intending for his quote to address the situation where the Pope gave the power to establish bishops to others. Yet you continue to insist that only the strict interpretation is correct. i.e. that a bishop can NEVER be established by anyone but the Pope. You are proven wrong by your own quotes!

Well, jurisdiction is attached to an office and I don't know of any traditional bishop who claims to hold an office. This would be a See established prior to the crisis. I'm not suggesting they should do this, only that they have not done this.

The Will of the lawgiver is for the good of the a church, the salvation of souls. In order for a bishop to claim the tacit approval of the Pope, he must rule over the clergy and the laity of a diocese. There must be a legitimate claim to that vacant See.

In the ancient days, as Archbishop Lefebvre noted, this could be accomplished by the election of the clergy and people of the diocese.

Archbishop Lefebvre taught:

Quote

The case of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X presents itself differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler, more classical, because what we have here is the majority of the diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their former bishop, designating his successor and asking Catholic bishops to consecrate him. This is how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome.

That is why, as I see it, the case of Campos should not be tied to the Society of St. Pius X. Resort would be had to the Society's bishops for an eventual consecration, not in their role as bishops of the Society but as Catholic bishops.

The two cases should be kept clearly separated. This is not without its importance for public opinion and for present-day Rome. The Society must not be involved as such, and it turns over the entire responsibility - altogether legitimate - to the priests and faithful of Campos.

In order for this distinction to be quite clear, it would be altogether preferable for the ceremony to take place at Campos, at least outside the diocese. It is the clergy and the Catholic people of Campos who are taking to themselves a Successor of the Apostles, a Roman Catholic bishop such as they can no longer obtain through Modernist Rome.

That is my opinion. I think it rests upon fundamental principles of Church Law and upon Tradition.

Nishant · « **Reply #40 on:** May 04, 2014, 10:07:14 AM »

Quote

So others besides the Pope can have the power to establish bishops. Correct? Yes or no?

CM, respectfully, if you ask me this, then I wonder if you have read my posts at all, for in the very beginning, I cited a text with words to that effect and myself said that yes, bishops can appoint other bishops provided they have received the express delegation to do so.

No bishop by virtue or as a right of his office has the power or right to appoint bishops. Never. To say this is to overthrow the monarchical constitution of the Church. He can only have it if it has been expressly conceded to him by his superior, as a delegated power. Whereas the Pope has it as an ordinary and proper power, by divine right belonging to his office.

Quote

For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions ... this power of giving jurisdiction ... 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.).

What bishops can never do, therefore, as the Pope teaches, is to assume to themselves a power that has not been delegated to them.

You said that you would accept this teaching if I provided an explanation of the historical circuмstances you mentioned, and I did, citing Pius IX's explanation of them, that at this time the Pontiffs expressly delegated to the local bishops the right to appoint candidates they chose.

Quote

"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 ... all of them asked for confirmation from the Roman Pontiff; the Roman Pontiffs confirmed them all by letter in such a way that at the same time the Pontiffs appointed them and placed them over their churches

and based on Lateran IV, 1215

Quote

"Bishops too, if they wish to avoid canonical punishment, should take care to promote to holy orders and to ecclesiastical dignities men who will be able to discharge worthily the office entrusted to them. Those who are immediately subject to the Roman pontiff shall, to obtain confirmation of their office, present themselves personally to him, if this can conveniently be done, or send suitable persons through whom a careful inquiry can be made about the process of the election and the persons elected. In this way, on the strength of the pontiff's informed judgment, they may finally enter into the fullness of their office

As Pius XII tells us, it is lawful for bishops to assume these powers only where the Pope has expressly given it to them, for none of them has it by virtue of his office, but only the Pope by his. Therefore, it must be expressly delegated, otherwise it cannot be assumed by them without being an usurpation of the Papal power.

This is a very serious matter, as Pius VI makes out, and not to be treated lightly.

Quote from: Dom Gueranger

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, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. Honour, then, and submission to Jesus in His vicar! honour and submission to the vicar of Christ in the pastors he sends!

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #41 on:** May 04, 2014, 09:48:55 PM »

Sorry, Nishant, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that under no circuмstances could a bishop other than the Bishop of Rome ever appoint another bishop. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quote from: Nishant

What bishops can never do, therefore, as the Pope teaches, is to assume to themselves a power that has not been delegated to them.

OK, I accept that as long as it isn't interpreted to mean that epikeia in this matter is completely ruled out. In the case, where there is a long interregnum and the Pope hadn't delegated this power to any bishops, I think for the good of souls it would be possible to appoint bishops. You will probably rebuke me for believing that but I really don't see how a disciplinary rule (i.e. appointments are reserved solely to the Apostolic See) could ever be allowed to impede the Church's mission. I know you will say that the only plausible explanation is that Francis is the Pope. However, you have never explained how any bishop (including the Pope) who does not have apostolicity of doctrine (cf. Van Noort) can be a Successor of the Apostles.

But for the sake of argument (I love a good argument) let's say that I am wrong and this is one disciplinary rule which can never under any circuмstances be dispensed. In that case, what do you think of the claim that Pope Pius XI had delegated power to appoint bishops to Archbishop Thuc? Bishop C. Datessen (consecrated in 1982) is still alive as far as I know. If he was legitimately appointed by ++Thuc and he has not departed from the faith then he is a Successor of the Apostles.

I do think that the best possible solution for the crisis is for all the remaining Catholic bishops to gather in a council, declare Francis deposed by his own tacit resignation, elect a true Catholic Pope, and agree before the election that whoever is elected must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart along with all the gathered bishops. That way, we will have confirmation from God on the legitimacy of the claim to the papacy. Because only the one true Roman Pontiff can consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. If Russia converts we know immediately who the true Roman Pontiff is. If Russia doesn't convert despite fulfilling all of Our Lady's requirements, I would have to say that the papal claim would be completely discredited.

poche · « **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2014, 05:19:12 AM »

The issue of a papal mandate is an issue of discipline not one of doctrine. From the code of Canon Law;

Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:

1/ outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;

2/ of good reputation;

3/ at least thirty-Five years old;

4/ ordained to the presbyterate for at least Five years;

5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.

§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See.

Can. 379 Unless he is prevented by a legitimate impediment, whoever has been promoted to the episcopacy must receive episcopal consecration within three months from the receipt of the apostolic letter and before he takes possession of his office.

Can. 380 Before he takes canonical possession of his office, the one promoted is to make the profession of faith and take the oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1D.HTM

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #43 on:** May 08, 2014, 12:49:13 PM »

I remember some time back it seemed difficult to discuss this issue without being personally attacked (never by Ambrose or others discussing the issue now). I am heartened that a sane discussion is taking place now. Especially when it is not admitted that tacit approval has been historically done and that the mandate was given in the past during an interregnum. Before when these objections were raised I did not not see the point as readily conceded. I posted something on another thread that should be posted here which goes as follows:

Ambrose wrote:

Quote:

Quote

Yes, tacit approval of the Pope is also legitimate. This can be found in the early Church or in the numerous diocesan bishops cited by Bp. Pivarunas during interregnums. If the lawful priests of a diocese acclaimed a certain
bishop as their lawful bishop during a lengthy interregnum, such an act
would appear to fulfill the requirements of a tacit approval of the Pope,
and would be supplied by the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre understood
this principle clearly (See letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bp. Castro de
Mayer http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31464)

A response to this which is not authored by me would be as follows:

Kind of hard to argue with history, isn't it? Abp. Lefebvre is merely explaining that the process is easier to explain for the Diocese of Campos than for the SSPX, and that he preferred that the two be kept separate, though they are both brother bishops fighting side by side in the same cause. See here the key practical aspects of the difference between a bishop being sent by the Church versus one who is not. If a bishop who is not sent from the Church just gets his consecration from wherever, and then tries to go forth saying "You must obey me; I'm a Catholic bishop!" of course the Catholic Faithful say "Why should we listen to you? The Church never sent you." This is exactly what Dom
Gueranger was talking about when he said " If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers."

But consider just how markedly that differs from the scenario of a flock of the Church (including some priests) desirous of having a bishop among them, there being a man chosen from their priests, with the clear consent of his fellow priests and the Faithful of said flock (at least in general, as some few individuals among the Faithful might well prefer a different candidate), and the priest is made a bishop and set as such over this particular flock. Such is of course the story of couple dozen or so dioceses that fell vacant back in the 1200's, and also of Campos during our current crisis.

This is also the story of our other traditional societies as well, For in each case, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI, Trento Priests in Mexico, and numerous other communities of the Catholic diaspora scattered all throughout the earth as so few of us have actually kept the Faith, you once again have legitimate flocks of Catholics, at first dependent upon various "independent" priests who had been given legitimate assignments as priests by the Church over parishes and other communities, but who were ousted by the modernists as a punishment for keeping faithful to the Faith of their ordination (a step taken by them of no real Catholic authority), and who were tending these unquestionably legitimate Catholic Faithful. Then one or another of these priests is elevated to the
Episcopacy, as chosen and recommended by his fellow priests of the same of similar flock(s) and by the ranks of the Faithful themselves for whom the man goes on to serve as their Bishop.

Now, if one wanted to argue that leadership of a traditional Catholic society is not a "Diocesan See" in some sense, that claim is not really relevant. A Diocesan See is, after all merely one form that a legitimate flock of Holy Mother Church can take, and admittedly by far the most common. But particular religious orders are also flocks, as would be such a thing as any "Society of Pontifical Right," or the people in any sort of "missionary territory" and the like. A traditional bishop today does not claim any actual "See" from among any of the historical Sees of the Church, but such a leadership position over a group of members of the Faithful really does constitute a "See" in practically every sense, and the bishops for these "Sees" are no less real bishops than the former bishops of all the classical Sees, or of the various religious orders.

So now, the only ingredient needed is the approval of the Pope. During that other lengthy papal vacancy so very long ago, this was achieved by having approved bishops taking a very active part in the process of selecting, approving, and consecrating the men so chosen. Their communion with the vacant papal chair (as evidenced by their approval and communion with the previous pope when he was still alive) shows that who they in turn approve also has (indirectly, through them) the tacit approval of the pope as well, even though there wasn't one at the time. So it is again with our traditional
bishops. Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre and Bps. de Castro-Meyer and Mendez were one and all approved bishops by the Pope. As they are the only ones to have (a) retained the Catholic Faith, and (b) provided for the future of the Church through a succession, their approval conveys the same indirect tacit papal approval as did those bishops of old who did likewise. So in short, all the dogmatic criteria needed in order for the traditional bishops to possess the same legitimacy and formal Apostolic succession of those who are truly sent by the Church are indeed held by them.

PG · « **Reply #44 on:** May 09, 2014, 02:08:12 PM »

LOT - Before you go any further, make sure that your fantasy/dream of a conclave driving your reasoning is at least accurate. The sspv and sspx bishops would not be participating. I don't even think it is a given that Fr. Dolan and Fr. Sanborn would participate. I would be nothing more than a thuc bishops conclave.

Perhaps the die hard SV's can stomach that, but if I may place a number to them, I was say they are very much in the minority.

Now, do you still have an appetite?