Author Topic: What Has Happened to the Catholic Church (Read 10486 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2011, 01:32:28 PM »

He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident. I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......

If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas

With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>

Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.

I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.

s2srea · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2011, 01:38:03 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Can you really go from being a lay person to a bishop? I was under the impression you had to be ordained a priest first, unless that article cut that part out.

Yes SS- If you remember, in defending +Lefebvre, if his ordination by Cardinal Leinart was invalid, his consecration by Leinart and, more importantly, the two supporting bishops would have his consecration valid as the minor orders are included in the major... So in this case, it would also be possible to elevate Brown to episcopate. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2011, 02:34:48 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Yes SS- If you remember, in defending +Lefebvre, if his ordination by Cardinal Leinart was invalid, his consecration by Leinart and, more importantly, the two supporting bishops would have his consecration valid as the minor orders are included in the major... So in this case, it would also be possible to elevate Brown to episcopate. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

The Episcopacy is traditionally regarded rather as an extension of the Priesthood (the rubrics clearly say that it is a priest who is getting consecrated) - you certainly remember the Tridentine and Scholastic definition regarding the number of Holy Orders: Seven.

Modern theologians tend to see the Episcopacy as a distinct Order, but be that as it may, we cannot confect doubtful sacraments. A prior ordination to the Priesthood is therefore certainly necessary.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2011, 02:43:19 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

The Episcopacy is traditionally regarded rather as an extension of the Priesthood (the rubrics clearly say that it is a priest who is getting consecrated) - you certainly remember the Tridentine and Scholastic definition regarding the number of Holy Orders: Seven.

Modern theologians tend to see the Episcopacy as a distinct Order, but be that as it may, we cannot confect doubtful sacraments. A prior ordination to the Priesthood is therefore certainly necessary.

How then do we explain Christ in his consecration of the Apostles without a formal elevation to the priesthood first?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2011, 03:26:25 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident. I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......

If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas

With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>

Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.

I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.

You can tell the person who wrote that article is a bit biased towards modernism.