Author Topic: Theological Sources  (Read 7630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caminus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3013
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Theological Sources
« on: March 28, 2011, 09:46:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone post sources and texts in reference to the doctrine stating that jurisdiction is a constitutive element of apostolic succession?  Or that without jurisdiction, the claims of apostolic succession are rendered void?  Or anything to that effect.  This is primarily in reference to eastern schismatics who are alleged to possess true apostolic succession.  SJB, I seem to recall you had quoted a source for that.  

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #1 on: March 29, 2011, 08:09:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Can anyone post sources and texts in reference to the doctrine stating that jurisdiction is a constitutive element of apostolic succession?  Or that without jurisdiction, the claims of apostolic succession are rendered void?  Or anything to that effect.  This is primarily in reference to eastern schismatics who are alleged to possess true apostolic succession.  SJB, I seem to recall you had quoted a source for that.  


    Quote
    Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, transl. Doronzo, (Bruce, 1952)

    hierarchy (Gr. xxxxxxx — sacred authority). The body of persons participating in ecclesiastical power, which is divided into power of orders and power of jurisdiction.

    The power of orders is immediately directed to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is immediately directed to ruling the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium) and through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects (judicial power), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law (coactive or coercive power). These last three powers are functions of the same sacred jurisdictional authority with which the Church is endowed as a perfect society.

    The power of jurisdiction is divided into: (1) power of forum externum, when directed principally to the common good, in so far as it regulates the social relations of the members and produces public juridical effects; and power of forum internum, when directed principally to private good, in so far as it regulates the relations of consciences with God and is exercised per se secretly and with prevalently moral effects; (2) ordinary power, when ipso jure (by law) it is connected with an office, and delegated power, when it is granted to a person by commission or delegation. Ordinary power is further divided into proper, i.e., annexed to an office and exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio), and vicarious, i.e., annexed to an office but exercised in another’s name.

    Since sacred power is twofold, hierarchy is likewise twofold, and therefore we have in the Church the hierarchy of orders, constituted by the body of persons having the power of orders in its different grades (see orders, holy), and the hierarchy of jurisdiction, consisting in the series of those persons who have the power of teaching and governing.

    In both hierarchies there are grades, i.e., the fundamental grades, which have their source in divine right (episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate in the hierarchy of orders; papacy and episcopate in the hierarchy of jurisdiction) and the secondary grades, which have been instituted by the Church.

    The two hierarchies, although very closely related, are really distinct. They are distinct in their mode of origin (orders are conferred by the appropriate sacrament, while jurisdiction originates through canonical mission) and in their properties (the valid use of orders, in most cases, cannot be prevented, while jurisdiction is revocable). They are, however, mutually related, because jurisdiction supposes orders and, vice versa, the exercise of orders is moderated by jurisdiction; and also because both come from God and directly or indirectly lead to God.

    Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics (Gr. xxxxxxx – lot, portion, sort, i.e., in sortem Domini vocati — “called to the lot of the Lord”), while all the others are called laics, laymen, laity (Gr. Xxxxxxx – the people). Since in its bosom the Church carries superiors and subjects, really distinct by divine right, it is an unequal society, i.e., a society in which the members do not have equal rights and duties.


    Quote
    The following is an exact reproduction of Q and A, taken from "The Church of Christ is Apostolical," Rev. James J. McGovern, DD., The Manual of the Holy Catholic Church, Chicago, 1906., pgs 157-158. Imprimatur Aug 24, 1906, Most Reverend James Edward Quigley, Archbishop of Chicago.

    Q. How does it appear that the Church of Christ is Apostolical?
    A. By the word Apostolical is meant, that the Church of Christ is ruled by the apostles, and the doctrine of faith was taught by them as they received it from Christ, the powers of priesthood were exercised by them, and that she must continue to the end of the world in the profession of the same faith and doctrine, and in a continual uninterrupted succession of priesthood, so that the apostolic doctrine, priesthood, and mission remain with her forever. That the Church shall always preserve the apostolical doctrine, we have seen above, when explaining the rule of faith; and that she shall never want a succession of true pastors, inheriting the same priestly powers and mission which she received at first from the apostles, is manifest from these considerations: First, Because true pastors, properly empowered, and lawfully sent, are a necessary part of the Church, and instituted by Jesus Christ, “for the perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv.; consequently, such pastors will never be wanting in her, according to that of the prophet: “Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all the day and al the night they shall never hold their peace,” Is. 1xii. 6.

    Second, because the scripture assures us, that “no man taketh the honour of the priesthood upon himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was,” Heb. v. 4.; much less can any man possess the powers of the priesthood, unless they be given to him by those who have the power to give them. Thus St. Paul writes to Titus, “For this cause I left thee at Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee,” Tit. i, 5.

    Third, that none who have these priestly powers can lawfully exercise them, unless they be authorized and commissioned to do so by being lawfully sent. Thus the apostles received their mission from Christ, who said to them, “As my Father sent me I also send you,” Jo. xx. In like manner they send others to succeed themselves, with power also to send others after them, as St. Paul and Barnabus were sent by the chief pastors of the Church at Antioch, and their doing so was declared to be the work of the Holy Ghost, “Then, they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Selucia,” Acts xiii. 3.

    St. Paul himself sent Titus, as above, that is, authorized and commissioned him to govern the Church in Crete, and ordain pastors in it under him; and he says, in another place, “How can they preach unless the be sent?” Rom. x. 15. This, then, is the door by which the true pastors of Christ’s flock enter, to wit, when lawfully ordained and sent, or commissioned by chief pastors of the Church. For all who take that office upon themselves, without entering by the door are declared by Christ himself to be “thieves and robbers,” John x. 1. From all which it is manifest, that as true pastors are an essential part of the Church of Christ, and will never be wanting in her, therefore, there will be in the Church a continued uninterrupted succession, of the priestly powers and mission given at the beginning by Jesus Christ himself to his apostles, to the end of time.
    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 #2 on: March 29, 2011, 08:22:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Saint Peter and Apostolic Jurisdiction, Monsignor Fenton
    “For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other 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 circumstances being very plainly determined.

    Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

    “…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

    “ …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.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)

    “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.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)


    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 Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #3 on: March 29, 2011, 08:36:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Caminus said:
    Quote
    This is primarily in reference to eastern schismatics who are alleged to possess true apostolic succession.


    And secondarily?   :wink:

    I think I see where this is going; if the sedes are right, then there are almost no priests left with ordinary jurisdiction.  

    Caminus said:
    Quote
    "Or that without jurisdiction, the claims of apostolic succession are rendered void?  Or anything to that effect."


    None of the quotes prove that.  They almost all sound disciplinary to me and pertain to normal times in the Church.  I have yet to see any compelling evidence that, in exceptional circumstances, a bishop with extraordinary jurisdiction only is not a successor of the Apostles.  

    The last paragraph of Quigley is the only one that makes it sound like a dogma that bishops must be sent by the Pope for there to be apostolic succession, but it is unlikely he had our situation in mind or could even imagine it, so what he is saying could easily fall under the category of a pious wish.  I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to this because no one was ever expecting an interregnum this long, so no one really speculated on it or could conceive that there would ever be a time when no bishops or almost no bishops were "sent."  

    I still await more proof.  For those who are bothered by this, and think it is a hole in the sede thesis, you can accept John Lane's solution, that there will always be at least one bishop alive, somewhere in the world, who was sent by the Pope.  In this case, he would be getting up there in years, since he'd have to be sent by Pius XII, John XXIII, or maybe even Paul VI before he promoted Vatican II, depending on who the last true Pope is and when the first anti-Pope revealed he lacked the office.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #4 on: March 29, 2011, 08:48:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Or else you'd better learn some creative arithmetic, on the order of 2 + 2 = 5.   :scratchchin:

    Or become a sedeprivationist.  In that case, if these are materially Popes, those they send are true bishops, I guess, except if the consecration is invalid, as I believe it is.  In fact it is Father Ricossa who, I believe, is a sedeprivationist, who has done some of the most detailed work showing the new rite of the consecration of bishops in Vatican II to be invalid.

    Most sedevacantist clergy that I'm aware of are silent on the jurisdiction question, on what would happen if there were no bishops left who are sent by a true Pope.  I don't think they're covering anything up, they strike me more as totally unconcerned, I'm guessing for the reasons I said above -- that a bishop must be sent by the Pope pertains to normal times.  

    That being sent by a Pope is necessary for apostolic succession has never been conclusively proven, sorry, Quigley doesn't quite cut it.    
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #5 on: March 29, 2011, 08:58:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    That being sent by a Pope is necessary for apostolic succession has never been conclusively proven, sorry, Quigley doesn't quite cut it.    


    Quote
    “ …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.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)


    Quote
    “…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)
    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 Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #6 on: March 29, 2011, 09:07:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB quoth:
    Quote
    “ …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.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)


    That's disciplinary and talking about normal times.  Surely you can see that.  Same with the Pius XII quote, which I have heard in this context about a gazillion times.  

    You also leave out the context of the first quote.  This encyclical from Pius VI is asserting the rights of the Church against the French revolutionaries who wanted to make the bishops subject to them, or to choose their own bishops.

    Very interesting that a sedevacantist has a quiverful of quotes that all seem to cast major doubt on the sedevacantist thesis, some being very obscure, and trots out these quotes without showing the other side of the story and with no context.  Interesting that this same sedevacantist also says he "hates" what he calls "dogmatic sedevacantists," and rarely points out the flaws in SSPX theology, but spends far more time railing against these dogmatic sedes, whatever they are.  I draw no conclusions, I just point a few things out.

    Anyway, as Caminus helpfully insinuates, if the Eastern schismatics i.e. Orthodox have apostolic succession, then you don't need to be sent by a Pope to have apostolic succession.  So do the Eastern schismatics have apostolic succession?  That is the first question to be answered.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #7 on: March 29, 2011, 10:24:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB, it bothers me greatly that you exhibit your quotes as if they refute what I'm saying, when as you must know full well, they do nothing of the kind.  

    I asked you for proof that being sent by a Pope is necessary for apostolic succession.

    The first from Pius VI says that no lawful consecration of a bishop can be had without going through the Pope.  

    ( 1 )  It says a bishop's consecration without the consent of the Pope is illicit, not invalid, let alone lacking succession.
    It doesn't respond to my question at all.

    ( 2 ) It is talking about normal times when there is a true Pope.  As you know, sede bishops would not consecrate other sede bishops except in a state of emergency.

    The second quote from Pius XII has a similar context, he is trying to stop communist infiltrators in the Chinese Catholic Church from consecrating their own bishops and rejecting those sent by Rome.  

    Just as with the quote from Pius VI, it does not respond to my question.  It says that jurisdiction flows from Peter, yes.  But it does not say that a bishop with no jurisdiction lacks apostolic succession.  It is also referring to normal times, times when there is a Pope.

    More rigor, please.  

    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #8 on: March 29, 2011, 10:29:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I remember reading about this on Bellarmine Forums.  John Lane held very firmly to the idea that ordinary jurisdiction was necessary for apostolic succession.  But it was evident to me right away that he had no real proof.  Someone came on and said the same thing, and was shut down.  

    Lane had a real weak spot here, and so does SJB, who is following his lead.  Since this isn't his site, I will exploit the weak spot.  Give me real proof, if you have it.  The not-exactly-renowned figure of Quigley, so far, is the best you have, and even what he wrote could just be a pious wish.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #9 on: March 29, 2011, 10:32:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    SJB quoth:
    Quote
    “ …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.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)


    That's disciplinary and talking about normal times.  Surely you can see that.  Same with the Pius XII quote, which I have heard in this context about a gazillion times.  

    You also leave out the context of the first quote.  This encyclical from Pius VI is asserting the rights of the Church against the French revolutionaries who wanted to make the bishops subject to them, or to choose their own bishops.

    Very interesting that a sedevacantist has a quiverful of quotes that all seem to cast major doubt on the sedevacantist thesis, some being very obscure, and trots out these quotes without showing the other side of the story and with no context.  Interesting that this same sedevacantist also says he "hates" what he calls "dogmatic sedevacantists," and rarely points out the flaws in SSPX theology, but spends far more time railing against these dogmatic sedes, whatever they are.  I draw no conclusions, I just point a few things out.

    Anyway, as Caminus helpfully insinuates, if the Eastern schismatics i.e. Orthodox have apostolic succession, then you don't need to be sent by a Pope to have apostolic succession.  So do the Eastern schismatics have apostolic succession?  That is the first question to be answered.


    No, they do not.

    A Successor of the Apostles is a man appointed by the Roman Pontiff to govern a particular church (i.e. a diocese). He has the power to teach, ex officio, and the power to rule (i.e. jurisdiction).


    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 #10 on: March 29, 2011, 10:37:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Mike, do you believe the Eastern Schismatics have the power to teach and to rule? If so, where does this power come from?
    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 #11 on: March 29, 2011, 10:43:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    SJB, it bothers me greatly that you exhibit your quotes as if they refute what I'm saying, when as you must know full well, they do nothing of the kind.


    Quote from: Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, transl. Doronzo, (Bruce, 1952)
    In both hierarchies there are grades, i.e., the fundamental grades, which have their source in divine right (episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate in the hierarchy of orders; papacy and episcopate in the hierarchy of jurisdiction) and the secondary grades, which have been instituted by the Church.

    The two hierarchies, although very closely related, are really distinct. They are distinct in their mode of origin (orders are conferred by the appropriate sacrament, while jurisdiction originates through canonical mission) and in their properties (the valid use of orders, in most cases, cannot be prevented, while jurisdiction is revocable). They are, however, mutually related, because jurisdiction supposes orders and, vice versa, the exercise of orders is moderated by jurisdiction; and also because both come from God and directly or indirectly lead to God.

    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 MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3480/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #12 on: March 29, 2011, 10:44:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not sure if this even applies, but a memory of the nuns telling the students, that during times of persecution when the bishops were fleeing for their lives, and knowing they had only moments to live because the enemy was steps behind them, they would grab a male, any Catholic male and consecrate them a Bishop, just so the church would go on.  They did not have the time to seek the popes approval, my point.  

    This was in the early days of the church, now that we are in the latter days of the church and without a pope, bishops are created for emergency, that the church will go on.  

    Also I wonder if these Modernist (VII popes) were Modernist even before their so-called election, they were already outside the Church and never were popes to begin with.  Therefore if they were not popes or even Catholics, they never had any authorty in the eyes of God.

    Well that is my simple way of looking at this matter, my wee brain does not allow me to even begin to understand this authority you are trying to figure out.  

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #13 on: March 29, 2011, 10:45:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, this is purely in reference to eastern schismatics.  The new theologians claim they have "apostolic succession" and are thus constituted "sister church's" and "true particular churches."  I seem to recall a quote from Cekada about the fact that they may possess it materially, but not formally because they lacked jurisdiction.  Maybe it was John Lane, I can't remember.  

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Theological Sources
    « Reply #14 on: March 29, 2011, 10:46:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJB said:
    Quote
    A Successor of the Apostles is a man appointed by the Roman Pontiff to govern a particular church (i.e. a diocese). He has the power to teach, ex officio, and the power to rule (i.e. jurisdiction).


    Now you have resorted to just baldly stating what you can't even come close to proving.  Weak, really weak.

    Find me ANYONE, any theologian, any Pope, who defines a successor of the Apostles that way, besides your Quigley.  Tell me where the Church has ever defined what a Successor of the Apostles exactly is.

    Here, let me try your method:  "A successor of the Apostles is someone with valid Holy Orders."  There, I said it, it must be true.  

    What must be determined are the minimum qualifications for being a successor of the Apostles.  Is it being able to trace your Holy Orders back to the Apostles, or is it being able to teach and to rule, having been sent by the Pope?  Proof, SJB, proof.

    Also, not everyone agrees with you about the Eastern schismatics not being successors of the Apostles, read the FishEaters thread about it.  You are trying to make this sound so certain when almost no sede or SSPX priests ( who also lack ordinary jurisdiction ) I know of are as certain as you are, when almost no one on the Internet is as certain.  Are you more educated?

    I have already proved you used quotes that didn't pertain to the question.  I don't care for how you're trying to bully this one through, the unwary could fall into an error like Gerry Matatics, thinking they can't go to any priest because they're all illicit.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


     

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