Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on March 28, 2011, 09:46:14 PM
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
“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 circuмstances 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.)
-
Caminus said:
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:
"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 circuмstances, 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.
-
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.
-
That being sent by a Pope is necessary for apostolic succession has never been conclusively proven, sorry, Quigley doesn't quite cut it.
“ …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)
“…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)
-
SJB quoth:
“ …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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
SJB quoth:
“ …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).
-
Mike, do you believe the Eastern Schismatics have the power to teach and to rule? If so, where does this power come from?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
SJB said:
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.
-
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.
Why do you care what the "new theologians" say?
-
I'm interested in refuting their ecclesiology for the sake of souls and the glory of God. I'm also thinking of writing a couple of short tracts regarding certain matters. The more sources the better.
-
SJB said:
Mike, do you believe the Eastern Schismatics have the power to teach and to rule? If so, where does this power come from?
Answer to your first question, no. They don't have ordinary jurisdiction. Answer to your second question, from the Pope.
Let me try this one more time -- you haven't yet proven that ordinary jurisdiction is a necessary quality of apostolic succession. You have only proven that the sedes and SSPX bishops don't have ordinary jurisdiction. Distinctions, distinnctions, SJB.
SJB said:
"Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, transl. Doronzo, (Bruce, 1952) said:
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."
Yeah, I realize that jurisdiction and Holy Orders are properties of a licit bishop, in normal times, and that they are interrelated. I say "in normal times" because you can't exactly call emergency bishops illicit.
Something else you forget is the concept of extraordinary jurisdiction. Can you really say that extraordinary jurisdiction is not enough to maintain succession of the Apostles? Prove it.
-
SJB said:
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.
Two classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of the priesthood but with regard to the power of jurisdiction: the diocesan bishop and the titular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 the episcopus in partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops there have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can; however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction. (See AUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also called vicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to the diocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop, episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is the diocesan bishop in his relations with the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of any metropolitan is called an exempt bishop, episcopus exemptus. The titular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of the diocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly called auxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers of jurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is named cuм jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of the diocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of the diocese.
-
HMiS on Fisheaters said:
"At the Council of Florence (1441) the Schismatic Churches of the East were treated not as "true churches" in the way that they are now supposed to be part of the Church of Christ (which they are not), but as churches with valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession, this I do not deny. The orthodox begged for political support against the Mohammedan threat, and now wanted to compromise their Photianist-Cerularian errors. But the orthodox do not possess jurisdiction at all, their confession are merely valid from the "ecclesia supplet" principle, not by them supposedly having real jurisdiction: they have no ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever, because jurisdiction comes from the Pope and from him alone."
So here is an SSPX guy who doesn't see jurisdiction as necessary for apostolic succession. No one corrects him, no one is scandalized. It is clear from the time I've spent researching this that what SJB pretends to be so simple and cut-and-dried is not even close.
I don't say anything for sure, I just say it hasn't been proven to me yet that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for apostolic succession, as opposed to extraordinary or supplied.
-
SJB said:
CE, bishop said:
Two classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of the priesthood but with regard to the power of jurisdiction: the diocesan bishop and the titular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 the episcopus in partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops there have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can; however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction. (See AUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also called vicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to the diocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop, episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is the diocesan bishop in his relations with the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of any metropolitan is called an exempt bishop, episcopus exemptus. The titular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of the diocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly called auxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers of jurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is named cuм jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of the diocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of the diocese.
What does this have to do with anything? Your quotes are almost all irrelevant.
All this quote talks about are two kinds of bishops, diocesan and titular. Diocesan have ordinary jurisdiction, titular do not, but sometimes the latter can be auxiliary ( secondary ) bishops. In certain cases ordinary jurisdiction passes to the titular bishop upon the death of the diocesan bishop.
Congrats, here is your thousandth quote talking about ordinary jurisdiction. That ordinary jurisdiction flows from the Pope is not in question here. How many times do I have to say it?
Let's try this yet again -- you have not even come close to proving that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to maintain apostolic succession. I await your next tangentially related chunk of text.
-
I would like to see something that states that apostolic succession and jurisdiction are intrinsically related. It would seem that they are because what good is apostolic succession without the power to rule, teach and sanctify? I think it is resolved with the material/formal distinction. They have orders, but sin in using them having no real jurisdiction at all.
-
Here's what I was looking for, though it is not from the most authoritative source, it is exactly as I remembered it:
"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. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they breach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character." CE, Apostolicity
-
Apostolic succession has to do with jurisdiction and an office in the Church. This does seem so obvious that I'm not sure we're going to find a source that specifically states this the way you want.
I don't see how merely valid orders can make some claim to include being a successor to the apostles. The apostles were part of the Hierarchy.
-
Congrats, here is your thousandth quote talking about ordinary jurisdiction. That ordinary jurisdiction flows from the Pope is not in question here. How many times do I have to say it?
Please show me where supplied jurisdiction gives any right to rule and govern, which is what we are talking about here.
-
What are you trying to saying, SJB? Are you saying that the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., even though they have valid orders have no right to exercise their priestly sacramental duties but heretics within the NO do have the right but have lost it through their heresies and/or apostasies? Congrats, poof! The Catholic Church has just disappeared. Those who profess the Faith have no right to exercise it; they do not profess it have no right to exercise it either due to their loss of faith.
-
What are you trying to saying, SJB? Are you saying that the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., even though they have valid orders have no right to exercise their priestly sacramental duties but heretics within the NO do have the right but have lost it through their heresies and/or apostasies? Congrats, poof! The Catholic Church has just disappeared. Those who profess the Faith have no right to exercise it; they do not profess it have no right to exercise it either due to their loss of faith.
No, not at all. I'm saying they do not have ordinary jurisdiction nor are they successors to the apostles.
-
Then, who are the successors to the Apostles?
-
Then, who are the successors to the Apostles?
Those who have the same Faith, there is only One Faith, and One Baptism. Certainly not the novus ordo, and I wonder why SSPX wants so much to be united with them?
Anybody!
-
Then, who are the successors to the Apostles?
Those who have the same Faith, there is only One Faith, and One Baptism. Certainly not the novus ordo, and I wonder why SSPX wants so much to be united with them?
Anybody!
So anybody who holds the Catholic Faith is a successor to the Apostles? I assume you consider yourself in the category.
-
Can you explain to me, why I shouldn't claim to be a Catholic in apostolic succession SJB?
-
Can you explain to me, why I shouldn't claim to be a Catholic in apostolic succession SJB?
We are talking about "Successors to the Apostles", which means a bishop or pope.
-
But, as I asked you, who are these people? Name them, please.
-
Can you explain to me, why I shouldn't claim to be a Catholic in apostolic succession SJB?
We are talking about "Successors to the Apostles", which means a bishop or pope.
Yes, and I am not a home aloner, I am under a bishop.
No offense to any home aloners that are truly home alone and for some reason impossible to be attached to a bishop.
Sorry, I thought you knew that about me.
From the CMRI website:
Perpetual Successors in the Primacy
Rev. Fr. Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
The following letter by Fr. Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., is a response to those who claim that the first Vatican Council’s reference to “perpetual successors in the Primacy” is a proof that the Chair of Peter could not have been vacant for the past forty years and more. Although originally written several years ago, the letter is just as relevent today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear correspondent,
You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first Pope, has “perpetual successors in the Primacy over the universal Church....”
You, understandably, wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be Popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.
The important thing here is to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the Papacy Our Lord established.
Did Our Lord intend that there should be a Pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the Papacy’s existence?
You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of Popes. You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, Popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each Pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no Pope, occupying the Chair of Peter. That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a Pope died. This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first Pope.
But you also know that the death of a Pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of Popes after Peter.
You understand now that “no Pope” did not mean “no Papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a Pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the Primacy over the universal Church.”
Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that the moment one Pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as Pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.
Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each Pope.
That interruption of succession of Popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.
Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new Pope was to be elected, and He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new Pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the Papacy is no more.”
Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a Pope.
So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of Popes after St. Peter has come to an end.
What we must realize here is that the Papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of Popes, is a divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the Papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the Papal headquarters in Rome.
Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the Papacy. But He will not do it, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the Papal Primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.
We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight. But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.
If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope, God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.
God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.
Nothing is impossible with God.
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M
11-30-02
-
With all due respect, Father, narrowly focusing on the improbable case of a literally vacant see for over 40 years misses the bigger point regarding ordinary jurisdiction within the Church at large. Eventually, all those bishops will die off and what are you left with? Hoping for a miracle while your position ultimately forces you to concede that the apostolic Church has vanished for want of legal successors?
-
If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope, God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.
This idea is an indirect admission of one of the main points of the Cassiciacuм thesis: The lack of any legal declaration regarding V2, etc., makes it possible for those who convert to formally assume the offices they materially occupy. That is a pretty sloppy wording of it, to be sure, but I am not a philosopher or theologian, and it is late...
-
Can you explain to me, why I shouldn't claim to be a Catholic in apostolic succession SJB?
We are talking about "Successors to the Apostles", which means a bishop or pope.
Yes, and I am not a home aloner, I am under a bishop.
Sorry, I thought you knew that about me.
Apostolic succession only applies to a bishop or pope. You cannot possess apostolic succession any more than you can be a priest.
-
Raoul, do you read latin?
-
Can you explain to me, why I shouldn't claim to be a Catholic in apostolic succession SJB?
We are talking about "Successors to the Apostles", which means a bishop or pope.
Yes, and I am not a home aloner, I am under a bishop.
Sorry, I thought you knew that about me.
Apostolic succession only applies to a bishop or pope. You cannot possess apostolic succession any more than you can be a priest.
Thats what I love about you, your so smart!
I feel confident just knowing my bishop can possess apostolic succession.
-
But, as I asked you, who are these people? Name them, please.
Why is that necessary? Just because most of the world doesn't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
If I wanted to follow them, where would I find them? How do I get a hold of them?
-
So, you're saying that I have to live and die without the Sacraments? No Mass of Christian Burial, either?
-
What are you trying to saying, SJB? Are you saying that the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., even though they have valid orders have no right to exercise their priestly sacramental duties but heretics within the NO do have the right but have lost it through their heresies and/or apostasies? Congrats, poof! The Catholic Church has just disappeared. Those who profess the Faith have no right to exercise it; they do not profess it have no right to exercise it either due to their loss of faith.
No, not at all. I'm saying they do not have ordinary jurisdiction nor are they successors to the apostles.
Then what are they? How would you describe them?
“Bishops are successors of the apostles, and are placed by Divine Institution over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.” (1) In canon law, there are chiefly two kinds of bishops: residential and titular. (omitted are the subclass of coadjutors and auxiliaries, who are assigned by the Roman Pontiff to a residential bishop personally or to the episcopal see.)
A resident bishop is the ordinary and immediate pastor of his diocese. He has the “right and duty to govern the diocese both in temporal and spiritual matters, with legislative, judicial, and coercive power, to be exercised according to the law.” (2) A titular bishop is a non-residential bishop consecrated to a see that has been abandoned as a result of infidel incursions. They have no powers in their titular dioceses, which numbered about 600-700 before the catastrophe of Vatican II. Titular bishops share in most but not all the privileges and insignia of a residential bishop. (3)
(1) Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (1932) I:§241.
(2) Bouscaren et al., Canon Law: Text and Commentary (1946), cc. 329-450.
(3) Bouscaren et al., Canon Law: Text and Commentary (1946), cc. 329-450.
-
By definition, they are neither residential nor titular (although for practical purposes they seem to resemble the latter).
I think it can be argued these bishops have been, in many cases, for perfectly just and necessary reasons, consecrated outside the strictures of canon law. They are not in communion with the diocese in which they dwell, even if they continue to celebrate diocesan feasts and adhere to former diocesan rules. The best word for them is the historical term episcopi vagantes, “wandering bishops.”
In the early church, these bishops had received valid, though sometimes irregular, consecration but possessed no diocese. Like the “wandering bishops” of old, today an episcopus vagans has sacramental powers but no jurisdiction, the authority to govern the faithful.
Titular bishops are those who have been appointed by the Holy See to a see or diocese which, in former times, had been canonically established and possessed cathedral church, clergy, and laity, but at present, on account of pagan occupation and government, has neither clergy nor people. It is essential that the titular diocese did once exist, and did cease to exist through death or defection of clergy and faithful, or pagan settlement and government. No vestige of titulars, as defined, appears until the close of the thirteenth century. Evidently the host of wandering bishops without title or see — missionary, regional, or exiled bishops — of whom historians make mention, cannot be classed with our titulars, who did not come into existence until the greater part of the East had passed under pagan rule, and the destruction or defection of the Christian flock and the death of their shepherds ensued. The episcopal succession in those dioceses was maintained as long as a hope remained of their rehabilitation, and their bishops were hospitably received, and frequently used by the diocesans as auxiliaries or vicars, in pontificals in their respective dioceses. Ecclesiastical authority placed some of them in temporary charge of vacant Western dioceses, on condition of their immediate return to their own sees when possible. Others were given the spiritual care of dioceses by civil princes who, avaricious of the episcopal revenues, prevented the appointment of a diocesan bishop. In the fourteenth century, the great number of bishops without occupation, and their invasion of the rights and privileges of the diocesans brought about necessary legislation. Clement V (I, iii de elect. V, Clem.) prohibited the election and consecration of any cleric, without papal license, to any of those vacant sees (sine clero populoque). The first mention of titular bishops occurs in the Lateran decree (sess. 9 de Cardinalibus), wherein Leo X permits the creation of titulars whom the cardinal-bishops may use as suffragans, or auxiliaries, in their respective dioceses.
-
I feel confident just knowing my bishop can possess apostolic succession.
Do you feel confident knowing that you are wrong?
I feel quite confident knowing the Apostolic Faith is preached at my chapel.
"Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ." ~Saint Athanasius
-
Are you with the NO, SJB? I thought that you were a sede? Or, are you a "home-aloner?"
-
Are you with the NO, SJB? I thought that you were a sede? Or, are you a "home-aloner?"
No. Yes. No.
-
Are you with the NO, SJB? I thought that you were a sede? Or, are you a "home-aloner?"
No. Yes. No.
Then, who's your bishop?
-
Are you with the NO, SJB? I thought that you were a sede? Or, are you a "home-aloner?"
No. Yes. No.
Then, who's your bishop?
Why do I need a bishop?
-
For confirmation; for valid orders for your priests.
-
For confirmation; for valid orders for your priests.
Yes, for certain Sacraments. That's all traditional bishops should be doing anyway. The diocese in which I live has no bishop other than a heretic sitting in the office of the bishop.
-
Got it; for you, then, jurisdiction is not an issue (or, is it?) So, what we "arguing" about here? As long as there are traditional bishops and priests, why worry about jurisdiction?
-
Got it; for you, then, jurisdiction is not an issue (or, is it?) So, what we "arguing" about here? As long as there are traditional bishops and priests, why worry about jurisdiction?
It's a question of jurisdiction and succession. It's a problem, but not one we're required to solve.
-
Got it; for you, then, jurisdiction is not an issue (or, is it?) So, what we "arguing" about here? As long as there are traditional bishops and priests, why worry about jurisdiction?
It's a question of jurisdiction and succession. It's a problem, but not one we're required to solve.
Why are you not required to solve this problem, but you deem it required to solve the "sedevacantism" problem?
-
Got it; for you, then, jurisdiction is not an issue (or, is it?) So, what we "arguing" about here? As long as there are traditional bishops and priests, why worry about jurisdiction?
It's a question of jurisdiction and succession. It's a problem, but not one we're required to solve.
Why are you not required to solve this problem, but you deem it required to solve the "sedevacantism" problem?
Recognizing Ratzinger cannot possibly be a valid pope is not really "solving" anything. Noticing a man is dead does not mean I'm going to pronounce him dead, fill out the coroner's report, take care of what happens to the corpse and find a replacement for him at his employer.
-
Certainly it's a problem, otherwise you wouldn't formulate an opinion. And when the opinion thus formulated possesses seriously adverse implications, ought one not seriously consider the veracity of the opinion itself? If you apply it to one, you must apply this mere "observation" to all. What are you left with?
Regarding your analogy, you haven't taken into sufficent account that a man could also appear to be dead, but not in reality. Especially when viewing his person from afar.
-
Certainly it's a problem, otherwise you wouldn't formulate an opinion. And when the opinion thus formulated possesses seriously adverse implications, ought one not seriously consider the veracity of the opinion itself? If you apply it to one, you must apply this mere "observation" to all. What are you left with?
I said it wasn't a problem that we needed to solve.
Regarding your analogy, you haven't taken into sufficent account that a man could also appear to be dead, but not in reality. Especially when viewing his person from afar.
I'm not saying the judgment is rashly made. Do you deny a layman (not a medical professional) is capable of knowing when a man is dead?
-
I said it wasn't a problem that we needed to solve.
Neither is the problem of who remains a member of the Catholic Church a problem that we need to solve.
I'm not saying the judgment is rashly made. Do you deny a layman (not a medical professional) is capable of knowing when a man is dead?
As a private individual, certainly; as one who judges as a matter of public law, no. As one who has direct contact, I concede; as one who views from afar reading literature on the internet, I deny. But the analogy isn't apt, otherwise Catholic theologians would have needed no recourse to authority when dealing with real heretics and the Church's law would be rather superfluous. The determination of who is a formal heretic is not a self-evident exercise in judgment, it is not merely apprehended by the senses, therefore the analogy fails.
Certainly you concede that a man could appear to be dead while not in reality.
Certainly you will also concede that a self-evident fact could not rank among opinions that are at best only probable, improbable, etc. As an reader of the manuals, do you not find it interesting that they have the humility to classify certain opinions as merely probable? And these are questions of abstract truths, not the determination of fact.
-
"Let the dead bury the dead."
-
Neither is the problem of who remains a member of the Catholic Church a problem that we need to solve.
Look, you implied I said it simply wasn't a problem when I actually said it wasn't a problem we needed to solve.
All of our judgments are extra-jurdicial. I've said that many times, yet you still pretend I haven't.
Also, I challenge you to provide the source that states an authoritative judgment is necessary for a latae sententiae excommunication to take place.
-
Whether you are willing to recognize it or not, it is a most grevious problem that needs to be addressed. When you look up from the man whom you deem to be dead and outside of the Church and realize that this same standard must apply to all bishops of the last 50 years, honesty would demand serious reflection on the rectitude of this "observation." If indeed, they have excommunicated themselves, so be it; if not, so be it. The singular object of our judgment ought to be where the integrity of the Catholic religion is maintained, outside of that we can make no certain claims.
I say this because SV's often accuse other traditional Catholics of 'compromising' the Church because they fail to eject the criminal revolutionaries, because they fail to assert that non-catholics, simpliciter, imposters as they say, are now reigning in power and that is the only logical solution. The fact of the matter is that the SV invites a far more grevious dilemma. But when presented with this dilemma, you just shrug your shoulders and say that we don't need to solve that problem. It is a double standard of infinite proportions.
That's all I'm going to or need to say.
-
When you look up from the man whom you deem to be dead and outside of the Church and realize that this same standard must apply to all bishops of the last 50 years, honesty would demand serious reflection on the rectitude of this "observation."
This is your lonely conclusion, not mine. Anyway, the "standard" you refer to does not apply to "all the bishops." The pope is not just "another bishop."
When it comes to this topic, you just can't seem to control yourself.
-
I'm not sure how and why you detect "lack of control" based upon my posts above. I offered a reasonable response and posed legitimate questions. You replied by asserting that the same standards do not apply to the Bishops in general as they are applied to the Roman Pontiff. If you are happy with that response, so be it.
-
I'm not sure how and why you detect "lack of control" based upon my posts above. I offered a reasonable response and posed legitimate questions. You replied by asserting that the same standards do not apply to the Bishops in general as they are applied to the Roman Pontiff. If you are happy with that response, so be it.
You restate my comments in your own twisted words fairly consistently. You also accuse me of dishonesty. I say our judgments are extra-juridicial and you tell me that I cannot make a judgment because I'm not a "competent authority."
-
Regarding your analogy, you haven't taken into sufficent account that a man could also appear to be dead, but not in reality.
Maybe the NOM and V2 docs only appear problematic, viewed from afar by amateurs? How do you KNOW there is a REAL problem with what the pope calls the ordinary form of the Roman Rite?
-
Examining a text and examining a man are two different animals.
-
I'm not sure how and why you detect "lack of control" based upon my posts above. I offered a reasonable response and posed legitimate questions. You replied by asserting that the same standards do not apply to the Bishops in general as they are applied to the Roman Pontiff. If you are happy with that response, so be it.
You restate my comments in your own twisted words fairly consistently. You also accuse me of dishonesty. I say our judgments are extra-juridicial and you tell me that I cannot make a judgment because I'm not a "competent authority."
Forget about the validity of your judgment for a moment, that's not really under discussion. Respond to the question at hand.
-
Examining a text and examining a man are two different animals.
We only examine the externals. We needn't be able to read hearts to make a judgment.
-
You can't so roundly divorce one from the other either. What point would their be in inquiring precisely what a man means by his words if definitive judgment can be made by merely observing with the senses?
-
You can't so roundly divorce one from the other either. What point would their be in inquiring precisely what a man means by his words if definitive judgment can be made by merely observing with the senses?
So a man must confess to be guilty?
-
When you look up from the man whom you deem to be dead and outside of the Church and realize that this same standard must apply to all bishops of the last 50 years, honesty would demand serious reflection on the rectitude of this "observation."
Again, the pope is not "just a bishop." Surely, an individual bishop (or bishops) can be a heretic and not affect the entire Church ... but a pope cannot. The indefectability of the Church is not at stake with an errant heretical bishop.
-
CMRI -- Bishop Pivarunas.
-
The best word for them is the historical term episcopi vagantes, “wandering bishops.”
Has the Church permitted the faithful to receive the Sacraments from the hands of episcopi vagantes? I would seem to doubt it as episcopi vagantes are illicit and to be avoided.
Why don't you go to Rome and ask for permission?
Maybe you can address the quote below...
It seems to me that the counter-argument to the lawfulness of approaching traditional clergy lacks essential elements. For example, does a priest or a bishop really have to possess a valid mission for it to be lawful to approach him for sacraments? Where is the proof of this major? Until this point is demonstrated there is no substance at all to the case of our opponents, it seems to me. That is, we don’t need to justify anything. All of the quotes I have seen in support of this claim are addressing a quite distinct point, which is that one who claims an office in the Church – that is, a right to rule the faithful – must be properly appointed (i.e. “sent”). It is perfectly true that we ought to flee usurpers as dangerous criminals. But what about those who are not usurpers of authority, who have valid orders and who are good Catholics willing to assist us with the sacraments? On what grounds must we flee them? This has never been addressed by any of these home-alone proponents, as far as I have seen.
-
However, can it be shown that approaching clergy with only sacramental powers is legitimate? This category would include Eastern Schismatics, Old Catholics, and Polish National, just to name a few. There is a distinction between power and authority. A man may have valid sacramental powers but not the authority to exercise them.
I am not sure about the Polish National, but the Orthodox and Old Catholics both open deny dogmas of the Catholic Faith, unlike the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI.
-
If they profess the Catholic faith "whole and inviolate" and have valid orders, sure, why not? What more could one ask for? In confessing to NO priests, for instance, I have found it difficult to confess some things, because I feel like I am confessing to a heretic, and if that priest is, to a moral certitude, a heretic, then how could my confession possibly be valid? Now, if you are going to say that the Church "supplies jurisdiction" in those instances, then certainly the Church will supply jurisdiction in those instances where one is confessing to a wholly orthodox priest who has valid orders but is simply lacking a "canonical mandate" to exercise his priestly duties.
-
However, can it be shown that approaching clergy with only sacramental powers is legitimate? This category would include Eastern Schismatics, Old Catholics, and Polish National, just to name a few. There is a distinction between power and authority. A man may have valid sacramental powers but not the authority to exercise them.
Why do you make no distinction between Catholics and schismatics and heretics?
-
How would you address this:
Only priests and bishops who, besides orders, have received a canonical mission, or jurisdiction, are lawful ministers of the sacraments and preachers of the word of God. Without this mission they cannot lawfully administer any sacrament, although they have received the power to do so in holy orders; nor can they validly absolve in the sacrament of penance; for absolution, as we have seen, is essentially a judicial act, which of its very nature requires jurisdiction.
Rev. W. Wilmers S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, an advisor at the Vatican Council.
If a priest is a heretic, does he still retain jurisdiction?
-
However, can it be shown that approaching clergy with only sacramental powers is legitimate? This category would include Eastern Schismatics, Old Catholics, and Polish National, just to name a few. There is a distinction between power and authority. A man may have valid sacramental powers but not the authority to exercise them.
Why do you make no distinction between Catholics and schismatics and heretics?
I actually thought that you weren’t making the distinction. That is to say, any man with sacramental powers we can legitimately approach.
How would you address this:
Only priests and bishops who, besides orders, have received a canonical mission, or jurisdiction, are lawful ministers of the sacraments and preachers of the word of God. Without this mission they cannot lawfully administer any sacrament, although they have received the power to do so in holy orders; nor can they validly absolve in the sacrament of penance; for absolution, as we have seen, is essentially a judicial act, which of its very nature requires jurisdiction.
Rev. W. Wilmers S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, an advisor at the Vatican Council.
What about canon 209?
-
How would you address this:
Only priests and bishops who, besides orders, have received a canonical mission, or jurisdiction, are lawful ministers of the sacraments and preachers of the word of God. Without this mission they cannot lawfully administer any sacrament, although they have received the power to do so in holy orders; nor can they validly absolve in the sacrament of penance; for absolution, as we have seen, is essentially a judicial act, which of its very nature requires jurisdiction.
Rev. W. Wilmers S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, an advisor at the Vatican Council.
If a priest is a heretic, does he still retain jurisdiction?
(Public) Heretics are non members of the Church and therefore they cannot have ordinary jursidiction.
-
140. The Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and the internal forum (1) in common error, (2) in a positive and probable doubt of fact as well as of law. (Canon 209.) The former teaching of authors concerning supplied jurisdiction, especially as to the titulus coloratus, etc., must be corrected to agree with this Canon.
-
Once again, we are going on the theological Merry Go Round. On the one hand, you are telling us that we should not confess to SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. priests because they lack canonical jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is morally impossible, for many of us, to confess to Novus Ordo priests whom we know, to a moral certitude, are heretics, and who, therefore, ipso facto lack jurisdiction.
Yet, if what you are saying is true, then, please, answer this: What about Canon 844, which allows "the faithful" to confess to Orthodox priests? Do they have canonical jurisdiction?
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
This is the new code.
-
Does this really address the fact that without a canonical mission, they cannot lawfully administer any sacrament.
Canon 209 does not say any man with holy orders who is not sent is supplied jurisdiction.
Of couse it does! cn 209 make no distinction at all and if the law makes no distinction then we shouldn`t make any. Where is the term "canonical mission" in this cn or in any commentary? The onus probandi is upon you.
I`m just referring here to the sacrament of penance (and perhaps matrimony too), since it requires jurisdiction.
Is there a common error?
No.
Is there a doubt?
I think so.
Isn't Canon law for clergy sent by the Church?
Not always, for instance Canon Law speaks about apostate priests who may administer validly the sacrament of penance to a person about to die, as I`m sure you know... unless you think that apostate priest is "sent" by the Church.
Besides law is for man and not man for law as Our Lord told the pharisees about the sabbath (Needless to say I`m not accusing you of Phariseism!). In case of necessity laws don`t apply as in normal times since as St. Thomas teaches "necessity knows no law" (I IIae q. 96 art. 6.)
Cristian
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
This is the new code.
Which was abrogated by the 1983 Code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
This is the new code.
Which was abrogated by the 1983 Code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
You follow the 1983 CIC? Why accept this and reject the NOM?
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
This is the new code.
Which was abrogated by the 1983 Code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
You follow the 1983 CIC? Why accept this and reject the NOM?
I never said that! But, what's the point of arguing over "jurisdiction" and citing the 1917 Code, when the present and past Pope do not see it as having any canonical force of law? For those who would use the 1917 Code to justify their position, where do they think that "jurisdiction" is today's Church is coming from?
-
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
This is the new code.
Which was abrogated by the 1983 Code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
You follow the 1983 CIC? Why accept this and reject the NOM?
I never said that! But, what's the point of arguing over "jurisdiction" and citing the 1917 Code, when the present and past Pope do not see it as having any canonical force of law? For those who would use the 1917 Code to justify their position, where do they think that "jurisdiction" is today's Church is coming from?
:confused1:
-
The '83 Code allows for CE of law and fact. In addition, other commentaries cited in the Fr. Angles article disagree with this one on the '17 Code.
-
The Church does not supply in common error about a clear and certain law. By way of illustration one may note the fact that the law clearly demands that a priest be duly authorized to hear confessions. Since this law is so clear, one could not term any common error concerning its existence as probable. Therefore the Church in all probability does not supply in cases of such common error. The Church supplies only in common error of fact, that is, in common error about the existence or the valid possession of a certain office or jurisdiction. Thus the common error must, first of all, be particularized. i.e., about a priest or bishop who is considered to possess some definite title of jurisdiction or to be legitimately exercising whatever jurisdictional title he might possess.
Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, Rev. F. Miaskiewicz, 1940.
Is this against something I said? I`m :confused1:
-
As we are discussing in another thread, Canon 844 would guarantee the validly of the sacramentals administered by the priests of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., all of whom acknowledge Unam Sanctam, because that very canon guarantees the validlty of those same sacraments when administered by Orthodox priests, who deny Unam Sanctam, to the Catholic faithful.
-
It is erroneous to suggest a priest can administer a sacrament knowing he does not possess the required faculties.
Transeat.
Nothing is supplied if it is clear faculties certainly do not exist.
That`s the point... it is not clear, because of the state of necessity.
-
I'm sure the SSPV and the CMRI wouldn't recognize the Code you are referring to...
Neither do the Orthodox. What's your point?
-
Supplied jurisdiction doesn't grant a capacity to act.
It is erroneous to suggest a priest can administer a sacrament knowing he does not possess the required faculties.
The Church supplies when there is some defect that was not apparent to the faithful and the clergy.
Nothing is supplied if it is clear faculties certainly do not exist.
Jurisdiction is supplied for the benefit of the penitent, not the priest. The code even allow for excommunicated priests to absolve.
-
Supplied jurisdiction doesn't grant a capacity to act.
It is erroneous to suggest a priest can administer a sacrament knowing he does not possess the required faculties.
The Church supplies when there is some defect that was not apparent to the faithful and the clergy.
Nothing is supplied if it is clear faculties certainly do not exist.
Jurisdiction is supplied for the benefit of the penitent, not the priest. The code even allow for excommunicated priests to absolve.
Which would explain the situation of an Orthodox priest per Canon 844?
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
As are the novus ordo.
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
Why can Catholics confess to Orthodox priests?
-
The Church supplies for the defect, I believe. This does not mean ordinary jurisdiction is not required.
-
So, I can, under certain circuмstances, confess to an Orthodox priest who denies Papal Primacy but not to a SSPX priest who affirms it?
-
So, I can, under certain circuмstances, confess to an Orthodox priest who denies Papal Primacy but not to a SSPX priest who affirms it?
No, of course not.
There is always a defect when there is no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church supplies for that defect. I don't think it means the heretic priest suddenly has ordinary jurisdiction and is "sent".
The law exists for man, not the other way around.
I'll post some excerpts from McHugh and Callan on epikeia, which may help explain.
-
As it has been pointed out elsewhere:
"The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not." (Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 38, Art. 2, Obj. 1)
So, once again, we are back to the Catch-22. The SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI priests are not heretics, but lack jurisdiction; the NO priests are heretics, and therefore, lack jurisdiction. Which is easier to have faith in? That the Church supplies for the former or for the latter? I would choose the first option.
-
If you are single, take a bus; if you are married with children, make an Act of Perfect Contrition. Some traditional priests appear to be willing to travel. What we need is a Trad network, where one can register to visit a traditional priest/bishop at certain locations near your home at specified times. As long as we are willing to pay their expenses (which, of course, we are), the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI should organize this, either collectively or individually (the latter option is much more likely, as it appears that each of those groups dislikes/hates the others.)
-
There is always a defect when there is no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church supplies for that defect.
Are you suggesting that a visiting priest in a diocese that has no faculties from the local ordinary can say to the faithful “don’t worry the Church supplies”?
I think that you would be hard pressed to find a canonist who envisaged Canon 209 in this way.
No.
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
As are the novus ordo.
As is sede-ism as it denies the authority of BXVI in principle and refuses communion with him and those who are in communion with him. It is also heretical as it denies the perpetual and visible successors of Peter as put forth in VCI.
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
Why can Catholics confess to Orthodox priests?
They are not supposed to as a matter of course, but if they did it would be valid as true schismatics require no jurisdiction for their sacraments to be valid.
-
So, I can, under certain circuмstances, confess to an Orthodox priest who denies Papal Primacy but not to a SSPX priest who affirms it?
If you would listen to the NO apologists, yes.
In reality jurisidiction is supplied to the SSPX priest when there is common error of law or fact.
-
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/validity_of_confessions_3.htm##6
7. NEW LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF CERTAIN SACRAMENTS FROM NON-CATHOLIC MINISTERS
7.1. Canons on the New Legislation Concerning the Reception of Certain Sacraments from Non-Catholic Ministers:
#2. Quoties necessitas id postulet aut vera spiritualis utilitas id suadeat, et dummodo periculum vitetur erroris vel indifferentismi, licet christifidelibus quibus physice aut moraliter impossibile sit accedere ad ministrum catholicuм, sacramenta poenitentiae, Eucharistiae et unctionis infirmorum recipere a ministris non catholicis, in quorum Ecclesia valida existunt praedicta sacramenta. (New Code Canon 844)
Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid. (New Code Canon 844, #2)
7.2. A Little History
The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on Ecuмenism, "De Oecuмenismo, Unitatis Redintegratio," 21 November, 1964, presented the guidelines for the so-called ecuмenical movement within the Catholic Church.
Its immediate practical application was substantiated in the Directory, Ad Totam Ecclesiam, issued by the Secretariat for Christian Unity on 14 May, 1967, signed by Cardinal Bea, President, and Bishop Willebrands, Secretary. In it we find section 2, "Sharing in Liturgical Worship with Other Separated Brethren," with the ancestor of New Code Canon 844.
"Since the sacraments are both signs of unity and sources of grace, the Church can for adequate reasons allow access to these sacraments to a separated brother. This may be permitted in danger of death or in urgent need (during persecution, in prisons) if the separated brother has no access to a minister of his own communion, and spontaneously asks a Catholic priest for the sacraments so long as he declares a faith in these sacraments in harmony with that of the Church, and is rightly disposed . . . A Catholic in similar circuмstances may not ask for these sacraments except from a minister who has validly received the sacrament of Order."
There was no surprise when, in 1983, we saw this ecuмenical policy included in the New Code, codifying under specious pretexts the communicatio in sacris which the Church had always abhorred. How far we were already from the sane doctrine of the Old Code!:
"Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum." (Canon 1258)
7.3. Notions
It is clear: a Catholic may receive from a non-Catholic minister the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion and Extreme Unction, under the following conditions:
There is a NEED, or a TRUE SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE to be obtained,
The danger of error and indifferentism is avoided,
There is a physical or moral impossibility to approach a Catholic minister,
The Sacraments to receive are valid in the church to which the minister belongs.
We already studied what Canon Law means by physical or moral impossibility to approach a priest when we considered the exemption from the ordinary canonical form for marriage. This does not present any problem: a persecution, a very long distance, onerous expenses, a scandal to avoid, a grave inconvenience, a spiritual harm to follow, all these are justifiable circuмstances and valid arguments.
I confess that for a long time I wondered about the meaning of the fourth condition. What does it exactly mean "in quorum Ecclesia valida existunt praedicta Sacramenta?" There is no doubt that, for example, an Old Catholic who has been validly ordained and fulfils the required conditions of matter, form and intention, can celebrate a valid although illicit Mass. Any validly ordained priest can administer a valid Extreme Unction, and any validly ordained Bishop can validly confirm and ordain.
Nonetheless, the reference to the Sacrament of Penance as being valid in a non-Catholic church did puzzle me. It was only by rereading the directory Ad Totam Ecclesiam that I finally understood the precise meaning. For the Vatican innovators, this means that the non-Catholic priest who is validly ordained administers validly the Sacrament of Penance in his church.
There is no other way to explain the restriction of #55 in the aforementioned directory:
"Catholicus autem, similibus in rerum adiunctis, haec sacramenta petere nequit, nisi A MINISTRO QUI ORDINIS SACRAMENTUM VALIDE SUSCEPIT."
This ecuмenical measure has become an acceptable practice in the post-Conciliar Church. So, in practice, one of the faithful who judges impossible to be able to approach morally a Catholic priest, and who sees in it a true spiritual advantage, can ask from a non-Catholic priest who is validly ordained to hear his confession. The absolution will be valid according to New Code Canon 844.
He may also attend Mass, receive Holy Communion and also fulfill the Sunday obligation. The directory is explicit in #47, alluding to a Catholic who attends Sunday Mass "apud Fratres orientales seiunctos," in the Divine Liturgy of our separated brethren of the Oriental churches!
7.4. Application to Our Case
We will proceed once more accepting ad hominem an absurd opinion, namely the one of those who consider the members of the Society of Saint Pius X outside the Church, schismatic and even "founders of a new church," as a certain American Bishop brusquely certifies in grotesque personal letters written to concerned faithful and clergy.
IF the Society of Saint Pius X is a non-Catholic church, and its priests are validly ordained (point that nobody in his right mind discusses), New Code Canon 844, # 4 authorizes any of the faithful to ask from them the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction, and also to attend their Masses, fulfilling as well the Sunday obligation.
The condition to take advantage of such permission is that there must be a true spiritual benefit for the person and that he avoids all danger for his faith. Any reasonable fear of spiritual harm arising from an approach to a Modernist priest in good standing will suffice to legitimate the recourse to the "Lefebvrites."
We are decidedly approaching the kingdom of lunacy. Unfortunately, such a miserable argument is the one which may convince and pacify our antagonists.
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
Why can Catholics confess to Orthodox priests?
They are not supposed to as a matter of course, but if they did it would be valid as true schismatics require no jurisdiction for their sacraments to be valid.
So, no problem then with SSPV or CMRI or the SSPX. If this is true, what are we arguing about in this thread?
-
The Orthodox don't need jurisdiction for validity because they are schismatic.
Why can Catholics confess to Orthodox priests?
They are not supposed to as a matter of course, but if they did it would be valid as true schismatics require no jurisdiction for their sacraments to be valid.
So, no problem then with SSPV or CMRI or the SSPX. If this is true, what are we arguing about in this thread?
You are saying these groups are true schismatics? Read the part of the study I quoted before. I don't think the '83 code envisions receiving sacraments from sede priests. No idea what status Rome considers them to be in.
-
It is clear: a Catholic may receive from a non-Catholic minister the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion and Extreme Unction, under the following conditions:
There is a NEED, or a TRUE SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE to be obtained,
The danger of error and indifferentism is avoided,
There is a physical or moral impossibility to approach a Catholic minister,
The Sacraments to receive are valid in the church to which the minister belongs.
The Church would never admit that a Catholic would be morally impeded from receiving NO sacraments because of erroneous sede views, thus this wouldn't apply to sede priests.
-
You stated it above -- they deny the authority of Benedict. How are they any different than the Orthodox??
-
You stated it above -- they deny the authority of Benedict. How are they any different than the Orthodox??
The sedes don't see themselves as non-Catholics. The Orthodox do. These sections discuss approaching non-Catholic ministers.
-
I do not think that the Orthodox would agree with you just as I do not think that sedes would agree with you comparing them to atheists.
-
There is always a defect when there is no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church supplies for that defect.
Are you suggesting that a visiting priest in a diocese that has no faculties from the local ordinary can say to the faithful “don’t worry the Church supplies”?
I think that you would be hard pressed to find a canonist who envisaged Canon 209 in this way.
No.
Then what exactly are you suggesting?
A priest cannot claim this if he can get permission. He can't neglect to seek permission or be rejected and claim to have supplied jurisdiction. I'm suggesting the conditions must be that the permission is impossible to get and the common good is at stake.
The law is at the service of man, not the other way around. We are not speaking of Divine Law here, just to cut off that response before you make it.
413. In its use epieikeia is at once lawful and dangerous. (a) it is lawful, for it defends the common good, the judgment of conscience, the rights of individuals from subjection to a written docuмent, and from opposition by the abuse of power; (b) it is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of the common good as well as self.
There follows a very lengthy discussion of the use of epieikeia. If I get a chance, I'll scan and OCR it so I can post the text.
-
What laws is anyone breaking? Please be specific.
-
What happens when he dies? Where does it rest then?
-
What common good is there for breaking the laws of the Church?
During the Great Apostasy, when we have God's teaching to be faithful to the traditions you have been taught along with His promise the Church will not end. Some church laws have ceased to be as they have become unnecessary, because the Church supplies through Jesus Christ the head of the Church always.
-
What common good is there for breaking the laws of the Church?
Then just admit that you personally disagree with the entire concept of epieikeia.
-
Well if you mean fullness and universal - nobody..until the next pope is elected.
Do you agree?
Yes, absolutely; but the same would be true if a Pope would resign his office or if he would lose that same office through heresy and/or apostasy.
-
What common good is there for breaking the laws of the Church?
Then just admit that you personally disagree with the entire concept of epieikeia.
I don't. I was asking what is the justification for breaking the laws of the Church in this particular case.
No, you said "the laws of the Church." So now you say you meant this particular law. Is that right?
-
So do you believe this law is one that epieikeia can never apply? Is that right?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:
“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.
-
I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:
“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.
-
I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:
“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.
-
I'm looking for an explanation. Perhaps you could explain how the following canon of the Council of Trent does not apply:
“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.
-
I really think it's your turn to offer some explaining.
Why are you not anathematized by this canon?
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.
-
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.