"There is another important item on which the Mystici Corporis Christi issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this docuмent, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff."9 In the edition of his Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici which came out after the issuance of the Mystici Corporis Christi, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII."

I ask, how does the SV square his opinion with this doctrine?

Where did you get this from?

I think it is from an AER Fenton article. Caminus has been reading Bellarmine Forums. :)

There's much good info on there definately.  But I extracted this text from another source.

In what way?  Whether or not jurisdiction is supplied?

Am I the only one who raises an eyebrow at Pius XII's strict teaching on jurisdiction, considering the timing of it?  

If he were a prisoner in the Vatican, as some believe, and knew about Freemasonic encroachment, shouldn't it have been the exact opposite?  Why didn't he write something to ease up the law on jurisdiction in the event of an emergency HE KNEW WAS COMING?  Why did he instead change the liturgy and relax the disciplinary laws and teach NFP?  Why did almost all his policies speed Vatican II along instead of checking it or hobbling it?  

Pius XII knew about persecution of the Church in communist countries, as well.  Why didn't he give permission to bishops to consecrate other bishops in case they weren't able to contact Rome, for instance, if they were trapped in China?  No, he did the exact opposite.  His reasoning was that the communist bishops were taking over the dioceses of the legitimate ones with jurisdiction.  But why make this a matter of jurisdiction, per se?  The problem with the jureur priests of the French Revolution was not that they didn't have jurisdiction; it was that they had a revolutionary mindset, which is anti-Catholic.  The same principle applies to the communist bishops of China.  

What does this have to do with jurisdiction, and why did Pius XII make such a big issue about it?  Could it have been that he knew a revolution in the Church was coming and he wanted to scare people away from "disobeying the Pope," so he tried to reinforce the power of the Pope over all bishops?  I'll just leave the question hanging out there with no answer, because no answer is possible for now.

Pius XII was conservative when he should have been liberal, like with jurisdiction; and liberal when he should have been conservative, like with NFP and the liturgy and the disciplinary laws.  In a time where the Pope should have been on the defensive, why did he take such radical steps, why was he so proactive and aggressive and tinkering with everything?  Way too many trads base their entire theology ON PIUS XII, and that is again the case with the French sedes who think no one has jurisdiction.  Pius XII is the one they cite most often to bolster their position on that.

SJB said:

Quote

How does it square with the four SSPX bishops? This issue affects ALL traditional bishops.

Exactly.

This issue has also been solved a long time ago.  The law about jurisdiction, like all laws, applies to normal times.  The Church teaches that bishops get their jurisdiction from the Supreme Pontiff, yes.  But they did not have a situation like ours in mind, and were speaking of times in which the Church was functioning normally.  

On the French sede websites I like to read, they are apparently home-aloners because they think that both Abp. Lefebvre's and Abp. Thuc's lines are illegitimate.  Not only do they have no jurisdiction, but Abp. Lefebvre excommunicated himself by signing the VII docuмents, or so they think.  This is a kind of Phariseeism.  They are blinded by the letter.  The letter of the law is not really even the real law; it's a Pharisaical misinterpretation of the law.

If a bomb went off in Rome and no one knew if the Pope were still alive, should the bishops let the succession of the apostles die out? A bomb has gone off in Rome -- they are trying to kill off the succession of the Apostles through the New Rite of Consecration, because if those bishops are invalid, the priests they ordain are also invalid.  

Your commentary is based neither on de jure principles nor de facto reality, rather it is based upon what exists in your imagination serving as major and minor premises.  Though you are correct regarding so-called "home aloners" -- they are infected with a severe case of scrupulosity but in the doctrinal order, which is probably a manifestation of the spiritual form of the disease.  

Caminus

I mean what I am about to say quite sincerely so please don't take it otherwise.

If you are so certain that you can debunk everything and anything that the sedevacantist say to back up their "theory", why don't you write a book and do so?  Think of the great service you will provide to many for showing them the error of their ways!

Or, how about a series of articles?

Your commentary is based neither on de jure principles nor de facto reality, rather it is based upon what exists in your imagination serving as major and minor premises.  Though you are correct regarding so-called "home aloners" -- they are infected with a severe case of scrupulosity but in the doctrinal order, which is probably a manifestation of the spiritual form of the disease.

Translation please.  :rolleyes: