Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Jehanne

Does it answer the objections made against sedevacantism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

This theory is novel and is break from the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and other authorities.   Stay away!  

Sedevacantism itself is a break from the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine, as easily demonstrated in the CFN article.

The CFN article is junk theology.  I am ashamed for John Vennari for having bought into this shoddy work and allowing Catholic Family News to publish it.

Read the latest heated discussion on the Bellarmine Forums on Mr. Siscoe's article:  

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606

Oh?

Did John finally come up with an argument?

The same one predicted by Vennari, I assume?

Why don't you register for the Bellarmine Forums.   You wouldn't stand a minute next to John Lane.  He would demand a rigor and a use of sources to back up every statement.  You would not get away with with spouting unsourced ideas like you do on here.

Quote from: Ambrose

Why don't you register for the Bellarmine Forums.   You wouldn't stand a minute next to John Lane.

I wish John Lane supported the resistance instead of Bishop Fellay. But then I wish everyone supported the resistance. :dancing:

John Lane supports the Catholic Church, not Bishop Fellay.  He defends Bp. Fellay only as far as the truth will lead.  

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.  

Yes, please explain to me how a parish priest could be constrained from hearing confessions 8 there 8 no distinction between the power of order and the exercise is of jurisdiction.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

No:

The power of order is distinct from the exercise of jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to reply to.

Orders are distinct from jurisdiction.  Holding an office is not.  One cannot hold an office and be without jurisdiction.  

The fact that there are priests who do not have an office but have jurisdiction delegated to them for a period, or supplied to them for an act does not weigh on this one iota.  

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.  

Yes, please explain to me how a parish priest could be constrained from hearing confessions 8 there 8 no distinction between the power of order and the exercise is of jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what the 8's (maybe they're supposed to be asterisks around "there"?) in your post mean, but your question is tangential and distracting.  You claimed agreement with the sedeprivationist theory that an office can be held without possessing the jurisdiction attached to it.  To prove this, you seem to be relying on instances where jurisdictional acts are performed validly by someone who does not have an office.  It is granted that one who does not have an office may have jurisdiction delegated to him for a period (by the law or a superior) or have jurisdiction supplied to him to ensure the validity of a given act.  

However, it is a non-sequitur to then conclude that one who possesses an office may somehow not posses the jurisdiction attached to it.  Think about it.  It's precisely because someone doesn't have an office that they must have jurisdiction delegated or supplied to them for the validity of jurisdictional acts.  

JohnLane - Use proper grammar, your responses are difficult to interpret.

And, there really is a big difference between each of the traditional choices(indult, R&R, privationism, and vacantism).

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction.  That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction.  That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops.  Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue.  The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession.  It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.  

Yes, please explain to me how a parish priest could be constrained from hearing confessions 8 there 8 no distinction between the power of order and the exercise is of jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what the 8's (maybe they're supposed to be asterisks around "there"?) in your post mean, but your question is tangential and distracting.  You claimed agreement with the sedeprivationist theory that an office can be held without possessing the jurisdiction attached to it.  To prove this, you seem to be relying on instances where jurisdictional acts are performed validly by someone who does not have an office.  It is granted that one who does not have an office may have jurisdiction delegated to him for a period (by the law or a superior) or have jurisdiction supplied to him to ensure the validity of a given act.  

However, it is a non-sequitur to then conclude that one who possesses an office may somehow not posses the jurisdiction attached to it.  Think about it.  It's precisely because someone doesn't have an office that they must have jurisdiction delegated or supplied to them for the validity of jurisdictional acts.  

You have it backwards:

I am relying on examples where a person holds an office, but does not have jurisdiction.

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose

Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope.  For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled.  I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

....which goes right back to the unanswerable Vennari challenge:

Sedes believe that if a pope does something evil, it is proof he is not pope.