Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on August 18, 2014, 04:05:57 PM
-
Complete list of pre-Vatican II bishops
Bishops with certain authority, consecrated during the reign of Pope Pius XII
I wonder what this particular brand of Sedevacantists will do once the last of these bishops dies? How can I say this in a way that doesn't sound bad...
"I can't wait?"
UPDATE: There are now just THREE such bishops alive today.
The last of the Pre-Vatican 2 bishops
According to the www.catholic-hierarchy.org web site there are only 10 living bishops who were consecrated prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on 9 Oct 1958.
Many home-aloners and/or sedevacantists would consider that these are the last true bishops, or the last bishops with jurisdiction and authority.
Many home aloners would only go to these bishops for confession, marriage, Mass, etc. Since they are obviously quite rare, they stay at home on Sunday instead.
The youngest of these 10 bishops is 89 years old and the oldest is 100
-
I don't get why these particular Sedes make such a big deal about these last 10 bishops...
We have plenty of valid bishops alive today. What's the problem? Do these particular Sedes have issues with consecrating without a papal mandate or something? A rather funny position for a sedevacantist to have...
Sounds like a "home aloner" group to me. This is how home-aloners justify that the Church hasn't failed. "It hasn't failed. These 10 bishops are still the hierarchy. I just can't get to any of their Masses, so I stay home."
Like I said -- I'm not wishing for evil or anything, but it will be helpful once these bishops have gone on to their reward. Then these home-aloners won't have any excuses to cling to. They will be forced to admit they were wrong, or that the Church has completely failed and the end of the world hasn't come.
THAT is what I look forward to.
-
The issue is that the traditional bishops, valid and heroic as they may be, are not formal successors of the apostles. They have no mission in the sense that the theologians speak of it-- they were not "sent", possess no office (and no jurisdiction as a result) and as a result they do not (cannot) rule the faithful. True successors are given the power to govern and sanctify, not just sanctify.
Of course, there could be true successors besides the ten bishops consecrated and given an office during the life of Pius XII. It's just that the traditional bishops aren't to be counted among them.
-
Although the Pius XII bishops are the most simple source of establishing members of the hierarchy, there are other sources,
-
I don't get why these particular Sedes make such a big deal about these last 10 bishops...
We have plenty of valid bishops alive today. What's the problem? Do these particular Sedes have issues with consecrating without a papal mandate or something? A rather funny position for a sedevacantist to have...
Sounds like a "home aloner" group to me. This is how home-aloners justify that the Church hasn't failed. "It hasn't failed. These 10 bishops are still the hierarchy. I just can't get to any of their Masses, so I stay home."
Like I said -- I'm not wishing for evil or anything, but it will be helpful once these bishops have gone on to their reward. Then these home-aloners won't have any excuses to cling to. They will be forced to admit they were wrong, or that the Church has completely failed and the end of the world hasn't come.
THAT is what I look forward to.
This is interesting. May I inquire to what group of 'sedes' you are referring?
I might hazard a guess that a line is being drawn at the introduction of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, making then a distinction between Bishops consecrated before and after this event. These ten, then, that are here identified, being somehow distinct from Bishops, licit or illicit, consecrated in this same rite, either with or without papal mandate.
SO lets make some top-level grouping of the living Bishops:
1. The ten Bishops listed above.
2. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
2a. Bishops Fellay, Galarreta, Mallerais , and Williamson
2b. Bishop Rangel
3. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin
3a. Bishops Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera, Hernandez (all deceased)
3b. Bishops McKenna, Munari, Gutiérez, Hillebrand, Pivarunas
3c. Bishops Bedingfeld, Oravec, Slupski, Sanborn, Vezelis, Miguet, Main, Dolan, Gandara
Please add to the list where information is available.
-
This is interesting. May I inquire to what group of 'sedes' you are referring?
I'm not entirely sure.
I received this from an ex-CI member at my e-mail address.
-
It's not about validity but about some kind of juridical continuity. Question is whether the death of the last Pius XII-appointed bishop would cause an effective defection of the Church. I for one don't think so, but that's one of the arguments that R&R raises against the sedevacantist position.
You don't spend very much time in the Crisis section of the forum, do you, Matthew? :laugh1:
This, like so many other questions, has been beaten to death over here.
-
This may be either a
1) sedeprivatoinist sedevacantist going after non-sedeprivationists (sedeprivationism has an answer to this particular problem)
2) Siri-theorist who believes that the hierarchy has continued under some secret lineage from Siri. You sure it wasn't Hobson who e-mailed you?
Doesn't sound like an R&R attacking the SVs, but it may be. Hard to know without the context.
-
To give a background for the controversy, a typical argument against mainstream sedevacantism is that this long of a sede vacante period would result in the defection of the Church and a violation of the dogma that St. Peter would have "perpetual successors". Since time itself cannot be the primary consideration, the question becomes one of a moral / authoritative / juridical continuity. One response is that this continuity has not been broken due to the Pius XII-appointed bishops who are still living. Some find this inadequate. Others find it unnecessary in terms of maintaining the continuity. Sedeprivationism is one answer. I have argued that this lineage could possibly persist in the Eastern Rites because the can validly/juridically appoint bishops on their own, without prior papal mandate, and that the Pope usually has a veto power after the fact, but is not an a priori prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction in the Eastern Churches. In addition, it's quite possible / probable that Bishop Thuc maintained an Apostolic Mandate from Pius XII that gave him the authority to consecrate bishops as he saw fit.
-
I don't get why these particular Sedes make such a big deal about these last 10 bishops...
We have plenty of valid bishops alive today. What's the problem? Do these particular Sedes have issues with consecrating without a papal mandate or something? A rather funny position for a sedevacantist to have...
Sounds like a "home aloner" group to me. This is how home-aloners justify that the Church hasn't failed. "It hasn't failed. These 10 bishops are still the hierarchy. I just can't get to any of their Masses, so I stay home."
Like I said -- I'm not wishing for evil or anything, but it will be helpful once these bishops have gone on to their reward. Then these home-aloners won't have any excuses to cling to. They will be forced to admit they were wrong, or that the Church has completely failed and the end of the world hasn't come.
THAT is what I look forward to.
This is interesting. May I inquire to what group of 'sedes' you are referring?
I might hazard a guess that a line is being drawn at the introduction of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, making then a distinction between Bishops consecrated before and after this event. These ten, then, that are here identified, being somehow distinct from Bishops, licit or illicit, consecrated in this same rite, either with or without papal mandate.
SO lets make some top-level grouping of the living Bishops:
1. The ten Bishops listed above.
2. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
2a. Bishops Fellay, Galarreta, Mallerais , and Williamson
2b. Bishop Rangel
3. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin
3a. Bishops Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera, Hernandez (all deceased)
3b. Bishops McKenna, Munari, Gutiérez, Hillebrand, Pivarunas
3c. Bishops Bedingfeld, Oravec, Slupski, Sanborn, Vezelis, Miguet, Main, Dolan, Gandara
Please add to the list where information is available.
I couldn't possibly sort through them but don't forget the Eastern Rite bishops.
-
I don't get why these particular Sedes make such a big deal about these last 10 bishops...
We have plenty of valid bishops alive today. What's the problem? Do these particular Sedes have issues with consecrating without a papal mandate or something? A rather funny position for a sedevacantist to have...
Sounds like a "home aloner" group to me. This is how home-aloners justify that the Church hasn't failed. "It hasn't failed. These 10 bishops are still the hierarchy. I just can't get to any of their Masses, so I stay home."
Like I said -- I'm not wishing for evil or anything, but it will be helpful once these bishops have gone on to their reward. Then these home-aloners won't have any excuses to cling to. They will be forced to admit they were wrong, or that the Church has completely failed and the end of the world hasn't come.
THAT is what I look forward to.
This is interesting. May I inquire to what group of 'sedes' you are referring?
I might hazard a guess that a line is being drawn at the introduction of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, making then a distinction between Bishops consecrated before and after this event. These ten, then, that are here identified, being somehow distinct from Bishops, licit or illicit, consecrated in this same rite, either with or without papal mandate.
SO lets make some top-level grouping of the living Bishops:
1. The ten Bishops listed above.
2. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
2a. Bishops Fellay, Galarreta, Mallerais , and Williamson
2b. Bishop Rangel
3. Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc Pierre Martin
3a. Bishops Lauriers, Carmona-Rivera, Hernandez (all deceased)
3b. Bishops McKenna, Munari, Gutiérez, Hillebrand, Pivarunas
3c. Bishops Bedingfeld, Oravec, Slupski, Sanborn, Vezelis, Miguet, Main, Dolan, Gandara
Please add to the list where information is available.
I couldn't possibly sort through them but don't forget the Eastern Rite bishops.
Yes, you are very correct; This list is a quick cut at an initial draft - I can only see so far looking out from under my rock -lol- and would more than welcome additional input from others. (I vote for gathering them all up, locking them in a room with a stove, ballots, and a box of matches until they elect a leader - rofl)
-
:facepalm:
They're not talking about validity but about juridical continuity.
-
John Anthony Marie,
You should know that Bp. Oravec passed ~ 2 weeks ago. R.I.P.
-
The fact of the matter is that it is a matter of faith that there will be successors of the apostles until the end of time, so the death of the bishops ordained and appointed during Pius XII's reign means nothing other than they are no longer successors of the apostles-- at which point we would know with certainty of faith that there are successors:
-John XXIII (as pope or through supplied jurisdiction of an antipope)
-Through Paul VI (most likely supplied jurisdiction for an anti pope, esp. after 1965)
-Theoretically (and very theoretically) successors from JPII, BXVI and possibly (though even more theoretically) through Francis
-Eastern Rite Bishops (via jurisdiction supplied to an antipope or not)
-Very, very, very theoretically to traditional bishops-- I would not make this claim but I know that some do
-Secret hierarchy via Red Curtain bishops, Siri, etc.
A teaching which is of the faith cannot be denied. There are successors to the apostles; we may not know who they are but that hardly means they do not exist. The Church began in an upper room, it is perfectly conceivably that she will "end" in a lower room, in the catacombs as it were.
-
John Anthony Marie,
You should know that Bp. Oravec passed ~ 2 weeks ago. R.I.P.
Thank you for informing me of his passing.
Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen.
-
The fact of the matter is that it is a matter of faith that there will be successors of the apostles until the end of time, so the death of the bishops ordained and appointed during Pius XII's reign means nothing other than they are no longer successors of the apostles-- at which point we would know with certainty of faith that there are successors:
-John XXIII (as pope or through supplied jurisdiction of an antipope)
-Through Paul VI (most likely supplied jurisdiction for an anti pope, esp. after 1965)
-Theoretically (and very theoretically) successors from JPII, BXVI and possibly (though even more theoretically) through Francis
-Eastern Rite Bishops (via jurisdiction supplied to an antipope or not)
-Very, very, very theoretically to traditional bishops-- I would not make this claim but I know that some do
-Secret hierarchy via Red Curtain bishops, Siri, etc.
A teaching which is of the faith cannot be denied. There are successors to the apostles; we may not know who they are but that hardly means they do not exist. The Church began in an upper room, it is perfectly conceivably that she will "end" in a lower room, in the catacombs as it were.
Good post. I would say though that with traditional bishops that any claim to them being formal successors is an error.
All of the traditional bishops know this, which is why they have always denied that they have jurisdiction and formal apostolic succession. The only bishop that ever claimed jurisdiction was the late Bp. Vezelis.
The only proponents of this view are certain laymen, who, in my opinion, do not understand the relevant theology of Apostolicity.
-
Looks like we might have to "deep six" this whole "juridical continuity" concept unless the remaining nine bishops start consecrating and in the old rite too!
We might have to come to the conclusion that consecrating bishops is not dependent on the approval of the pope - even if the pope is Pope St Pius X or Leo XIII. Bishops consecrate bishops.
Besides, it's highly likely that we can't prove the lineage of bishops through the 14th century. I read somewhere that 90% of all bishops trace their lineage to one bishop from the 1600's. There was so much chaos in the 14th century that apostolic succession is a matter of faith. Then again, not a single one of those three popes from the 14th century were deniers or wishy-washy quasi-professors of the faith in the tepid manner of the post-Vatican II popes.
-
The fact of the matter is that it is a matter of faith that there will be successors of the apostles until the end of time, so the death of the bishops ordained and appointed during Pius XII's reign means nothing other than they are no longer successors of the apostles-- at which point we would know with certainty of faith that there are successors:
-John XXIII (as pope or through supplied jurisdiction of an antipope)
-Through Paul VI (most likely supplied jurisdiction for an anti pope, esp. after 1965)
-Theoretically (and very theoretically) successors from JPII, BXVI and possibly (though even more theoretically) through Francis
-Eastern Rite Bishops (via jurisdiction supplied to an antipope or not)
-Very, very, very theoretically to traditional bishops-- I would not make this claim but I know that some do
-Secret hierarchy via Red Curtain bishops, Siri, etc.
A teaching which is of the faith cannot be denied. There are successors to the apostles; we may not know who they are but that hardly means they do not exist. The Church began in an upper room, it is perfectly conceivably that she will "end" in a lower room, in the catacombs as it were.
Good post. I would say though that with traditional bishops that any claim to them being formal successors is an error.
All of the traditional bishops know this, which is why they have always denied that they have jurisdiction and formal apostolic succession. The only bishop that ever claimed jurisdiction was the late Bp. Vezelis.
The only proponents of this view are certain laymen, who, in my opinion, do not understand the relevant theology of Apostolicity.
You probably know that I agree with you; except that if one were to come up with an orthodox explanation of how a given traditional bishop had an office I would listen. As such, I do not think it is possible to explain this in a way which doesn't violate some already established truth. But it would definitely be a most convenient way toward restoration!
-
UPDATE:
There are now just FOUR bishops consecrated before 1958, or during the reign of Pope Pius XII, who everyone considers to be a valid Pope.
The clock is ticking...
-
Here are the ages of 3 of the "four surviving Pius XII bishops". The youngest of them, Bp. Dominik Kalata, is such a young whippersnapper that he didn't even make Page One of the oldest bishops. He's only 91.74 years old!
The other (3) Pius XII bishops are in purple text (since I clicked on each of them). You can ignore all the ones in blue.
-
I wonder what this particular brand of Sedevacantists will do once the last of these bishops dies?
This is a problem with those sedevacantists who irrationally think that the Church is preserved in these men. They implemented the heresies of Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo in their dioceses. If they had rejected the errors of the Conciliar sect it would be widely known. The only bishops appointed by a True Pope known to have rejected Conciliarism are Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, and Bishop Castro de Mayer.
When the last of these bishops die, I have confidence that the Catholic Church is still preserved in the traditional bishops and communities who have continued to persevere in the True Faith.
-
I wonder what this particular brand of Sedevacantists will do once the last of these bishops dies?
This is a problem with those sedevacantists who irrationally think that the Church is preserved in these men. They implemented the heresies of Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo in their dioceses. If they had rejected the errors of the Conciliar sect it would be widely known. The only bishops appointed by a True Pope known to have rejected Conciliarism are Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, and Bishop Castro de Mayer.
When the last of these bishops die, I have confidence that the Catholic Church is still preserved in the traditional bishops and communities who have continued to persevere in the True Faith.
I agree.
I just started this thread, and updated it, with the idea of smashing the error of those home aloners -- technically many of them are sedevacantists as well, but more importantly they are (dogmatic) home aloners.
I agree that all the Trad bishops -- and that includes the Sedevacantist branch -- are valid bishops. Furthermore, any issue of jurisdiction or authority is moot, as the Church supplies in a crisis like we're in today. I would have thought most men would have common sense enough to understand that -- but alas, human beings have an almost infinite ability to err and get things wrong.
-
Sedevacantism on the brain, Matthew?
Two years passed, why update now? If it's a countdown you're looking for, it would be much more dramatic if you'd not skipped 9,8,7,6, etc.
-
UPDATE: Now it's down to THREE living bishops appointed by Pius XII.
-
UPDATE: Now it's down to THREE living bishops appointed by Pius XII.
So the end of the crisis must be near. :)
-
This is a problem with those sedevacantists who irrationally think that the Church is preserved in these men. They implemented the heresies of Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo in their dioceses. If they had rejected the errors of the Conciliar sect it would be widely known. The only bishops appointed by a True Pope known to have rejected Conciliarism are Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, and Bishop Castro de Mayer.
When the last of these bishops die, I have confidence that the Catholic Church is still preserved in the traditional bishops and communities who have continued to persevere in the True Faith.
I agree.
I just started this thread, and updated it, with the idea of smashing the error of those home aloners -- technically many of them are sedevacantists as well, but more importantly they are (dogmatic) home aloners.
I agree that all the Trad bishops -- and that includes the Sedevacantist branch -- are valid bishops. Furthermore, any issue of jurisdiction or authority is moot, as the Church supplies in a crisis like we're in today. I would have thought most men would have common sense enough to understand that -- but alas, human beings have an almost infinite ability to err and get things wrong.
And I also agree with you and TKGS in this matter. :o
-
These bishops are Latin rite (of the Latin Church).
There are still the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church and dozens more that have valid episcopal consecration, not to mention they don’t seem to give a flip about Vatican 2. The Ukrainian Uniates have been denounced by the Orthodox in Ukraine for not being ecuмenical enough and basically taking control of ex-Orthodox churches in a Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet style.
These home aloners look like complete idiots when the bigger picture of Who and What the Catholic Church is comes to light. Just because a large portion of the Latin Church has defected means nothing. The Churches which use the Byzantine and Alexandrian rites are alive and well.
-
These bishops are Latin rite (of the Latin Church).
There are still the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church and dozens more that have valid episcopal consecration, not to mention they don’t seem to give a flip about Vatican 2. The Ukrainian Uniates have been denounced by the Orthodox in Ukraine for not being ecuмenical enough and basically taking control of ex-Orthodox churches in a Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet style.
These home aloners look like complete idiots when the bigger picture of Who and What the Catholic Church is comes to light. Just because a large portion of the Latin Church has defected means nothing. The Churches which use the Byzantine and Alexandrian rites are alive and well.
Finding a Ukrainian or Coptic Church within a distance you can travel to weekly is downright impossible for most people I'd imagine.
-
These bishops are Latin rite (of the Latin Church).
There are still the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church and dozens more that have valid episcopal consecration, not to mention they don’t seem to give a flip about Vatican 2. The Ukrainian Uniates have been denounced by the Orthodox in Ukraine for not being ecuмenical enough and basically taking control of ex-Orthodox churches in a Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet style.
These home aloners look like complete idiots when the bigger picture of Who and What the Catholic Church is comes to light. Just because a large portion of the Latin Church has defected means nothing. The Churches which use the Byzantine and Alexandrian rites are alive and well.
Which ones have come out and denounced Vatican II as a false religion?
-
These bishops are Latin rite (of the Latin Church).
There are still the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church and dozens more that have valid episcopal consecration, not to mention they don’t seem to give a flip about Vatican 2. The Ukrainian Uniates have been denounced by the Orthodox in Ukraine for not being ecuмenical enough and basically taking control of ex-Orthodox churches in a Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet style.
These home aloners look like complete idiots when the bigger picture of Who and What the Catholic Church is comes to light. Just because a large portion of the Latin Church has defected means nothing. The Churches which use the Byzantine and Alexandrian rites are alive and well.
Great post. Common sense at work! :applause:
-
Which ones have come out and denounced Vatican II as a false religion?
Same could be said of the (3) valid Latin rite bishops, making your post pointless and off topic.
Denouncing and simply not putting it into practice or ignoring it are two different things, but both are commendable given the circuмstances.
(Let me add that I believe there are more than three (3) valid Latin rite bishops in the world who are not SV, SSPX or Resistance. I would be inclined to believe that most of the bishops consecrated in the Novus Ordo rite by true bishops not modernists are valid bishops. I am unsure who is and what their numbers are so I avoid them as a general rule. See validity of the new rite... http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations )
-
Same could be said of the (3) valid Latin rite bishops, making your post pointless and off topic.
Denouncing and simply not putting it into practice or ignoring it are two different things, but both are commendable given the circuмstances.
I would argue that given we're into this 50+ years just ignoring it or not putting it into practice is less than commendable. The indults do this too.
-
I would argue that given we're into this 50+ years just ignoring it or not putting it into practice is less than commendable. The indults do this too.
I thought the Indults preached all about Vatican 2 and the new popes. I think there is a clear difference between the Eastern rites and the Indults, mostly being that Eastern rites have valid priestly orders.
Either way, this list of three living Latin rite bishops is so incomplete when you consider that there are so many more valid bishops in the world. Even the Campos defection has a valid bishop that can trace his orders back through Bishops Rangel and Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
UPDATE: Now it's down to THREE living bishops appointed by Pius XII.
It's actually down to two. Bishop Dominik Katala was ordained during the reign of Pius XII, but wasn't appointed until 1985.
-
Finding a Ukrainian or Coptic Church within a distance you can travel to weekly is downright impossible for most people I'd imagine.
I'm very blessed that way. Within 45 minutes drive of me I have ...
2 SSPX chapels (Cleveland, OH and Girard, OH)
1 Independent SSPX-aligned chapel (Akron, OH)
1 SSPV chapel (Parma, OH)
1 CMRI chapel (Akron, OH)
2 Ukrainian Rite churches (including the seat of the Eparchy) (Akron, OH and Parma, OH)
1 Maronite church (another about an hour from where I live) ... though I wouldn't go there because they're thoroughly Novus Ordized (Fairlawn, OH and Cleveland, OH)
6 Byzantine-Ruthenian churches (including the seat of the Eparchy) (Barberton, Brunswick, Brecksville, Solon, Burton, and Parma, OH)
1 Melkite Rite church (Akron, OH)
3-4 older/retired priests who will offer the Sacraments (e.g. Confession) in the traditional form
Cleveland area has always been a very ethnically diverse region of the country with lots of immigration.
-
This is the main reason that a form of sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism is far superior to sedevacantism proper. Indeed, the jurisdictional hierarchy has pretty much come to an end ... which according to nearly all theologians would entail a defection of the Church. This is the so-called "Ecclesiavacantism" objection. With sedeprivationism, that simply isn't true. And I maintain that even if Bergoglio and his predecessors are only material popes, they still retain the power of designation (that's why Cardinals he would appoint would be able to elect a valid formal pope). But this IMO would hold also of episcopal appointments, and so long as the appointed bishops have no impediments to exercising their office, they have full formal authority and jurisdiction. I believe that to hold true in the Eastern Rites.
-
It's actually down to two. Bishop Dominik Katala was ordained during the reign of Pius XII, but wasn't appointed until 1985.
That's debatable. Bishop Kalata was ordained at such a young age because he was one of these stealth iron-curtain bishops ... who were given complete jurisdiction (in secret), similar to the orders that Bishop Thuc received. In fact, they could in turn appoint other bishops, who in turn would also have jurisdiction. They waited until 1985 to give him a public appointment.
That's one very interesting facet of the Thuc line. Pius XII basically communicated to him all the powers of the papacy that were not by divine law only capable of being held by the Holy See ... through the so-called mandatum, including if I understand correctly the power to appoint titular bishops. But someone could correct me if I'm wrong.
-
This is the main reason that a form of sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism is far superior to sedevacantism proper. Indeed, the jurisdictional hierarchy has pretty much come to an end ... which according to nearly all theologians would entail a defection of the Church. This is the so-called "Ecclesiavacantism" objection. With sedeprivationism, that simply isn't true. And I maintain that even if Bergoglio and his predecessors are only material popes, they still retain the power of designation (that's why Cardinals he would appoint would be able to elect a valid formal pope). But this IMO would hold also of episcopal appointments, and so long as the appointed bishops have no impediments to exercising their office, they have full formal authority and jurisdiction. I believe that to hold true in the Eastern Rites.
But, as you said in your next post, there are still valid Bishops even in a sedevacantist position, such as the Thuc line. Even the Dimonds, probably the most extreme sedevacantists I've come across, view the Thuc line as valid. It's still very, very few Bishops, but that's not too unlike the Arian Crisis.
-
That's debatable. Bishop Kalata was ordained at such a young age because he was one of these stealth iron-curtain bishops ... who were given complete jurisdiction (in secret), similar to the orders that Bishop Thuc received. In fact, they could in turn appoint other bishops, who in turn would also have jurisdiction. They waited until 1985 to give him a public appointment.
That's one very interesting facet of the Thuc line. Pius XII basically communicated to him all the powers of the papacy that were not by divine law only capable of being held by the Holy See ... through the so-called mandatum, including if I understand correctly the power to appoint titular bishops. But someone could correct me if I'm wrong.
Can you elaborate on the bolded? Are you saying that it is possible that those bishops of the Thuc line could in fact have jurisdiction?
-
I thought the Indults preached all about Vatican 2 and the new popes. I think there is a clear difference between the Eastern rites and the Indults, mostly being that Eastern rites have valid priestly orders.
Either way, this list of three living Latin rite bishops is so incomplete when you consider that there are so many more valid bishops in the world. Even the Campos defection has a valid bishop that can trace his orders back through Bishops Rangel and Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre.
I thought what makes the indult is the very fact that they were told they had to accept Vatican II and not speak negatively of it.
I would agree that there are more valid priests in the Eastern rite, but I wouldn't commend them if they are silent about or ignore Vatican II. It is also my understanding that there are a number of Eastern rites that have gone "ecuмenical", so they aren't fool proof. Take a look at their 1990 Code of Canon Law.
As for additional bishops, yes I agree. I think the issue in this thread is bishops with jurisdiction.
-
Can you elaborate on the bolded? Are you saying that it is possible that those bishops of the Thuc line could in fact have jurisdiction?
I think that it's possible that at least the first-line Thuc bishops have real (non-supplied) jurisdiction, i.e. those consecrated directly by him. Not sure if it's communicable to the bishops consecrated in turn by these. I don't know that anyone has ever produced a copy of the Thuc mandatum but if it's similar to known copies issued to others in Communist territories, they were given all authority short of what was reserved by Divine Law to the Pope himself. Not only that, but Thuc and the bishops he consecrated would not have been excommunicated by Canon Law for doing consecrations without papal mandate ... since he had a mandate.
-
Indeed, the jurisdictional hierarchy has pretty much come to an end ... which according to nearly all theologians would entail a defection of the Church.
Please provide a few quotes or citations. They must be easy to come by since “nearly all theologians” have addressed this topic. I must have bad reading comprehension since I couldn’t find anything about this in the theological manuals (Van Noort, Wilhelm and Scannell, Parente, etc). John Lane would agree with you on this point but when Fr Cekada asked him for quotes to prove it (during debate on Ignis Ardens in 2012), he provided a quote from W&S which turned out to be at best ambiguous. It certainly wasn’t clear that they were intending to say that the jurisdictional hierarchy (the ordinaries) must have at least one living office holder at all times. If you think about it a bit, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. What other institutions would have a similar requirement?
-
I think that it's possible that at least the first-line Thuc bishops have real (non-supplied) jurisdiction, i.e. those consecrated directly by him. Not sure if it's communicable to the bishops consecrated in turn by these. I don't know that anyone has ever produced a copy of the Thuc mandatum but if it's similar to known copies issued to others in Communist territories, they were given all authority short of what was reserved by Divine Law to the Pope himself. Not only that, but Thuc and the bishops he consecrated would not have been excommunicated by Canon Law for doing consecrations without papal mandate ... since he had a mandate.
A few years ago someone posted an image of it here. I don’t have time to search for it now. I saved a copy of the image on my laptop. If need be, I can upload it later. However, there’s a big caveat. The source of the information was a palmerian line group. So not exactly a unassailable witness. Still, I’m not sure why they would feel the need to make something like that up or why they would be motivated to forge a docuмent like that.
-
Please provide a few quotes or citations. They must be easy to come by since “nearly all theologians” have addressed this topic.
By nearly all theologians, I am referring to nearly all theologians who have addressed the topic. Various R&R have cited quotations backing this principle, Nishant in particular, if I recall, and I found the citations convincing. I'll see if I can find them.
-
A few years ago someone posted an image of it here. I don’t have time to search for it now. I saved a copy of the image on my laptop. If need be, I can upload it later. However, there’s a big caveat. The source of the information was a palmerian line group. So not exactly a unassailable witness. Still, I’m not sure why they would feel the need to make something like that up or why they would be motivated to forge a docuмent like that.
Of Thuc's mandatum? I've seen images of similar mandata issued to other Iron Curtain bishops, but not the actual Thuc one. Kalata, who is still alive ... circling back to the original thread topic ... most likely had one.
-
Some episcopal lineage charts.
-
Of Thuc's mandatum? I've seen images of similar mandata issued to other Iron Curtain bishops, but not the actual Thuc one. Kalata, who is still alive ... circling back to the original thread topic ... most likely had one.
Yes, Archbishop Thuc's mandatum. CI Post here: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-book-arguing-against-sedevacantism/msg479690/#msg479690 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-book-arguing-against-sedevacantism/msg479690/#msg479690)
And the source is here: http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html (http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html)
-
By nearly all theologians, I am referring to nearly all theologians who have addressed the topic. Various R&R have cited quotations backing this principle, Nishant in particular, if I recall, and I found the citations convincing. I'll see if I can find them.
Thanks in advance. I recall Nishant saying that but I also recall that he was overstating his case. I have never seen any theological manual discussing specifically the jurisdictional hierarchy in the context of the indefectibility of the Church. Whenever they do discuss indefectibility they don't go into the specifics of what would constitute a defection. So I don't think the specifics are based on divine revelation. The discussion would need to be limited to what what we can know from reason. Obviously, the Church must have at least one bishop. But why would the Church need at least one ordinary when ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary for electing a pope? If it was a revealed doctrine then end of discussion. But if it isn't revealed, there is no logical reason for advancing such a proposition.
-
Thanks in advance. I recall Nishant saying that but I also recall that he was overstating his case. I have never seen any theological manual discussing specifically the jurisdictional hierarchy in the context of the indefectibility of the Church. Whenever they do discuss indefectibility they don't go into the specifics of what would constitute a defection. So I don't think the specifics are based on divine revelation. The discussion would need to be limited to what what we can know from reason. Obviously, the Church must have at least one bishop. But why would the Church need at least one ordinary when ordinary jurisdiction is not necessary for electing a pope? If it was a revealed doctrine then end of discussion. But if it isn't revealed, there is no logical reason for advancing such a proposition.
I vaguely recall his citing Billot, but I'm not 100%.
-
Yes, Archbishop Thuc's mandatum. CI Post here: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-book-arguing-against-sedevacantism/msg479690/#msg479690 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-book-arguing-against-sedevacantism/msg479690/#msg479690)
And the source is here: http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html (http://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html)
Thank you. So it is said that the extent of the powers was verbally communicated. With that, we'll never know for sure what the Pope told +Thuc. I don't believe that +Thuc ever gave details.
-
Thank you. So it is said that the extent of the powers was verbally communicated. With that, we'll never know for sure what the Pope told +Thuc. I don't believe that +Thuc ever gave details.
Yeah, it's an interesting topic but in the end isn't terribly important because none of the bishops ordained by +Thuc ever claimed to have been appointed to an office. But maybe there was someone who remains in hiding who +Thuc did appoint to an office? Who knows? Anyway, I don't think it is crucial to the resolution of the crisis. It could be a crumb to hang onto for those who are convinced that there must always be an ordinary in existence.
-
Just TWO such bishops alive now.
-
Just TWO such bishops alive now.
So +Kalata passed away?
:pray:
... the End Times draw nigh.