Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on July 05, 2018, 02:42:40 PM
-
During Vatican II's discussions on the collegiality novelty, the question arose of whether bishops get their jurisdiction from the pope (traditional teaching) or from their consecration (Modernist teaching).
Cdl. Dante wrote a letter to Paul VI during Vatican II's 3rd session:One could make a long list of popes who were elected without being bishops and the acts of government they posed in the period between their election and their consecration. … Was the Church in error in saying that these men were Sovereign Pontiffs before their consecrations? … The [Modernist-controlled] Commission believes that it is enough to say that they had the "desire" of being consecrated. Perhaps then the will to receive a sacrament that gives a power is sufficient to receive this power? The response of the Commission is as absurd as saying that a seminarian who has the will to be ordained a priest can already validly celebrate Mass!
(source: a talk at the June 23, 2018, conference in Rome Old and New Modernism: The Roots of the Crisis of the Church (https://www.fondazionelepanto.org/attivita/vecchio-e-nuovo-modernismo-le-radici-della-crisi-della-chiesa/))
Do sedevacantist bishops adhere to the Modernist teaching of Vatican II that the source of their episcopal jurisdiction is their episcopal consecration?
-
All traditional catholic priests/bishops are protected (and ordered) by canon law to provide the sacraments to the faithful. That's their job. Canon law has many different canons (both in the 1917 and 1983 code) which allow priests to provide the sacraments to the faithful, in emergency situations, when the faithful requests them out of necessity. Further, canon law gives the benefit of the doubt to the faithful AND to clerics when interpreting what an "emergency" is. Such emergency circuмstances are not defined by bishops or superiors, but can exist in the faithful's own perception of events, or even the perception of the clerics themselves. The HIGHEST law of the Church is the salvation of souls, therefore, when the Church enforces and issues canon law, it always errs on leniency and permission when it comes to jurisdiction for saying mass and providing the sacraments. Ergo, due to the quasi-heretical circuмstances of new-rome for the past 50 years, the questions of orthodoxy, the scandals of many clerics and the outright promotion of error, traditionalists are well within their rights and are protected by canon law when they request sacraments from valid, traditional priests. And such priests who provide them are lawful too. It's called "supplied jurisdiction".
-
With a few exceptions (most of whom have passed away), sedevacantist bishops do not claim ordinary jurisdiction, but merely supplied jurisdiction for the Sacraments.
Why is this limited to sedevacantist bishops? R&R bishops also lack ordinary non-supplied jurisdiction.
-
Interesting. So the Church recognized as legitimate the governing acts of Pope-Elects before their episcopal consecration? This adds even more legitimacy to the sedeprivationist position.
-
Interesting. So the Church recognized as legitimate the governing acts of Pope-Elects before their episcopal consecration? This adds even more legitimacy to the sedeprivationist position.
Yeah, I thought that was interesting, too.
-
All traditional catholic priests/bishops are protected (and ordered) by canon law to provide the sacraments to the faithful.
Supplied jurisdiction allows bishops to consecrate new bishops?
-
Why is this limited to sedevacantist bishops? R&R bishops also lack ordinary non-supplied jurisdiction.
Can a bishop validly consecrate new bishops during an interregnum?
from Miaskiewicz's 1940 Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon 209.pdf):Certainly jurisdictional power, as has been seen, is distinctly separate from the powers of Orders and therefore the power of jurisdiction does not include the faculty to bless, to consecrate, to say Mass, to anoint, or to perform some other sacred function.
So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.
-
I am only aware of two instances where individuals were given the authority to consecrate bishops without papal mandate - Monseigneur Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon ( 15 March, 1938 ) and Monseigneur Michel d'Herbigny, S.J., titular bishop of Trcie ( 10 March, 1926 ).
-
Supplied jurisdiction allows bishops to consecrate new bishops?
Not by their own will or whim. The need must be perceived as imperative, otherwise you would have Bishops creating their own personal hierarchies. It is alway a question when you act outside of the Church's law and regulations.
-
Can a bishop validly consecrate new bishops during an interregnum?
from Miaskiewicz's 1940 Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon 209.pdf):So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.
From the Code of Canon Law;
1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
-
During Vatican II's discussions on the collegiality novelty, the question arose of whether bishops get their jurisdiction from the pope (traditional teaching) or from their consecration (Modernist teaching).
Cdl. Dante wrote a letter to Paul VI during Vatican II's 3rd session:(source: a talk at the June 23, 2018, conference in Rome Old and New Modernism: The Roots of the Crisis of the Church (https://www.fondazionelepanto.org/attivita/vecchio-e-nuovo-modernismo-le-radici-della-crisi-della-chiesa/))
Do sedevacantist bishops adhere to the Modernist teaching of Vatican II that the source of their episcopal jurisdiction is their episcopal consecration?
.
Priests have explained to me that with supplied jurisdiction a priest gets his competency and power to forgive sins and provide sacraments to the faithful in cases of necessity, and that they get this jurisdiction supplied by the Church acting through their ordination. We distinguish but we do not separate. Their ordination is important, and it is distinguished from the power of the Church to supply jurisdiction, but these are not to be separated, such that we leave out the Church and only focus on their ordination. It is the Church acting THROUGH the priest's ordination which we speak of when we say, "supplied jurisdiction."
.
Since episcopal consecration is not a separate sacrament but rather the perfection or "fullness" of priestly ordination (we distinguish but we do not separate), it would seem the same principle applies to bishops, that in cases of necessity they have the power to consecrate more bishops without papal mandate, when the power of the Church supplies jurisdiction and that acts through the bishop's consecration. This is the case with the 4 SSPX bishops in the same way also with the 3 new bishops under +Williamson's episcopacy, all of which occurred under a state of necessity, so the Church supplied the necessary jurisdiction acting through the consecration of ABL and +AdCM, and so on: things like that.
.
ABL suffered much anguish over his decision to do that in 1988, and was supported by +Antonio de Castro Mayer when they both laid hands on each of the 4. So too when +W consecrated Fr. Faure (who had been ABL's first choice from the beginning!), then later both +W and +Faure together consecrated Fr. Thomas Aquino, and then again when all three consecrated Fr. Zendejas. None had a papal mandate but in all 7 cases it was judged by the consecrating bishops that a sufficient case of necessity existed.
.
It's most telling that when Pope Benedict XVI so-called lifted the excoms on the 4 surviving bishops, no mention was made of that applying to ABL and/or +Mayer posthumously. One could argue the excoms were invalid all along, and the proper thing to do would have been annulment, but that would have implied the deceased two were never excom'ed as well. So Newchurch did the "Romanita" thing, which amounts to an act of cowardice. They have allowed ABL and +AdCM to wear their so-called excommunication as a badge of honor!
.
Notice that Newrome has taken no action on the three new +W bishops. That would be "stepping in it."
.
I have heard CMRI priests say they receive their priesthood from the imposition of the bishop's hands.
.
Another knowledgeable priest explained to me that "One cannot give that which he does not have," in context of a priest being able to ordain another priest (because he in fact has that degree of the priesthood), and that a priest can confer confirmation since he has been confirmed himself, and he is a priest, so confirmation is something that he "has." This would be in a situation of necessity such as when a bishop is not available and a great and urgent need exists for confirmation. In such a case the priest might need to obtain approval of a bishop to provide confirmation without the bishop's personal real presence, but I'm not clear on that. It would seem all the more appropriate for him in order to ordain a priest (having to obtain permission from a bishop). However, since a priest has not been raised to the highest order of the priesthood and does not "have" episcopal consecration, it would mean that the priest cannot consecrate another priest a bishop, because that's something he "doesn't have." But I'm not absolutely sure how the fine points pan out.
.
These are all cases of the Church supplying jurisdiction (even without Papal mandate) for the priest to provide valid sacraments.
.
Therefore, while the imposition of hands are part of the sacraments (confirmation and priestly ordination) and therefore cannot be SEPARATED (by saying that's where the validity comes from), it must be DISTINGUISHED (imposition of hands is not one and the same thing as jurisdiction or providing the sacraments). We distinguish but we do not separate.
.
This overshadowing principle applies to many things in the Church. We distinguish the Mass from the consecration of the host, but we do not separate them, therefore, the eucharistic consecration happens in the context of the Mass but is not a "separate" act, rather it is a distinguished act (the Offertory is not the Consecration). The Consecration is not removed from the Mass (not separated). And so on. As Fr. Schell used to say so often, "Things like that."
.
-
Can a bishop validly consecrate new bishops during an interregnum?
from Miaskiewicz's 1940 Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon 209.pdf): ...
So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.
.
Again, it is a matter of the Church supplying jurisdiction for the bishop. We ought not to think of it as a separation of jurisdiction and the power of (episcopal) Orders. We distinguish but we do not separate.
.
Not sure why any bishop would choose to do this during an interregnum when he could wait for a new Pope. Seems to be asking for controversy. But I see your point where sedevacantists believe we have been in an interregnum ever since (generally) the death of Pius XII. Beginning with that principle, having to wait for a "real" Pope would be tantamount to allowing the Church to die as the remaining bishops fade away. Thus they derive the state of necessity.
.
Consequently, the bishop obtains jurisdiction from the Church (even without Papal mandate), which jurisdiction acts through the power of the bishop which he received at his consecration. These two things act together, not separately, while they are not one and the same thing. We distinguish but we do not separate.
.
-
Can a bishop validly consecrate new bishops during an interregnum?
from Miaskiewicz's 1940 Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz--Canon 209.pdf):
.
Quote from: p. 12
Certainly jurisdictional power, as has been seen, is distinctly separate from the powers of Orders and therefore the power of jurisdiction does not include the faculty to bless, to consecrate, to say Mass, to anoint, or to perform some other sacred function.
So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.
.
The guiding principle is, "We distinguish but we do not separate." The words, "distinctly separate," do not follow this principle.
For example, this quote from Miaskiewicz implies you can have jurisdictional power without Orders as well as Orders without jurisdictional power. This introduces confusion instead of clarity!
.
Therefore, it would seem this quote from Miaskiewicz contains a mistake. Where it has "distinctly separate" it ought to have "distinguished." If those words are replaced, it would say:
.
Certainly jurisdictional power, as has been seen, is distinctly separate (distinguished) from the powers of Orders and therefore the power of jurisdiction does not (inherently and necessarily) include the faculty to bless, to consecrate, to say Mass, to anoint, or to perform some other sacred function.
.
But this quote introduces another principle, namely that of "faculty," so I suggest the addition also of "inherently and necessarily."
.
A priest gets his faculties from his legitimate superior(s).
.
Perhaps someone else can comment on priestly faculties.
.
As for me, I can say this much:
.
I have heard that in modern colleges the longstanding principle of human faculties (sight, discernment, physical prowess, dexterity, speech, writing, flying helicopters, commanding an army, etc.) became such a problem for modern philosophers, that they eventually took up the denial of faculties per se. This means that whenever the topic came up they would say, "There are no faculties."
.
They could not cope with the logical consequences of human faculties, so they resorted to denying they exist!
.
I would say this is an example of how far off the rails of RIGHT THINKING that modern philosophy takes its adherents!!
.
-
From the Code of Canon Law;
1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
Yes, it's illicit but valid.
-
I am only aware of two instances where individuals were given the authority to consecrate bishops without papal mandate - Monseigneur Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon ( 15 March, 1938 ) and Monseigneur Michel d'Herbigny, S.J., titular bishop of Trcie ( 10 March, 1926 ).
Can you provide more details on that?
-
Can you provide more details on that?
Sure. Reproduced from the French periodical Sous La Banniere, a "Motu Proprio" of Pope Pius XI delegated extraordinary powers to then Titular Bishop of Saigon, Ngo-Dinh-Thuc. It reads as follows -
Pius XI, Pope:
By the fullness of the power of the Holy Apostolic See, We appoint as our Legate Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, titular of Saigon, for boundaries known to Us, with all the necessary faculties.
Given at Rome from St. Peter's, the 15th day of March, 1938, in the seventeenth year of our Pontificate.
(signed) Pius XI, Pope
The significance or extent of these powers, identical with those conferred by the same Pope on the predecessor of Bishop Thuc 12 years earlier, Bishop d'Herbigny, S.J., were made explicit by the Pope himself, as quoted by Father Paul Lesourd in his book Le Jesuite Clandestin:
"Orally, the Holy Father detailed first of all, all the powers which he was giving, including the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer on them the episcopacy without their having need of pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures engaging themselves to conform to such under oath.
"Then, after having detailed at length verbally all the truly extraordinary powers, the Pope thus summed himself up very solemnly:
"In a word We grant you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not by Divine Law incommunicable."
I have photocopies of both Moto Proprio(s) mentioned above.
-
Sure. Reproduced from the French periodical Sous La Banniere, a "Motu Proprio" of Pope Pius XI delegated extraordinary powers to then Titular Bishop of Saigon, Ngo-Dinh-Thuc. It reads as follows -
Pius XI, Pope:
The significance or extent of these powers, identical with those conferred by the same Pope on the predecessor of Bishop Thuc 12 years earlier, Bishop d'Herbigny, S.J., were made explicit by the Pope himself, as quoted by Father Paul Lesourd in his book Le Jesuite Clandestin:
"Orally, the Holy Father detailed first of all, all the powers which he was giving, including the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer on them the episcopacy without their having need of pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures engaging themselves to conform to such under oath.
"Then, after having detailed at length verbally all the truly extraordinary powers, the Pope thus summed himself up very solemnly:
"In a word We grant you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not by Divine Law incommunicable."
I have photocopies of both Moto Proprio(s) mentioned above.
Well now. This sheds a new light on those who question the Thuc consecrations. It also opens up the possibility that the Thuc bishops and subsequent line have more than just supplied jurisdiction, doesn't it?
-
Well now. This sheds a new light on those who question the Thuc consecrations. It also opens up the possibility that the Thuc bishops and subsequent line have more than just supplied jurisdiction, doesn't it?
It is interesting to note that these special pontifical facilities to ordain priests and consecrate bishops without explicit authorization from Rome were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8th, 1939.
-
It is interesting to note that these special pontifical facilities to ordain priests and consecrate bishops without explicit authorization from Rome were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8th, 1939.
Yes, it is. Thanks for posting this information. I don't recall ever seeing it.
-
Well now. This sheds a new light on those who question the Thuc consecrations. It also opens up the possibility that the Thuc bishops and subsequent line have more than just supplied jurisdiction, doesn't it?
For those who believe that cuм ex is still in force, then +Thuc, being suspect of deviating from the faith after 1938 (he was Novus Ordo off and on), lost his office before consecrating bishops. This makes all +Thuc consecration of bishops invalid, does it not?
-
So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.
.
The guiding principle is, "We distinguish but we do not separate." The words, "distinctly separate," do not follow this principle.
For example, this quote from Miaskiewicz implies you can have jurisdictional power without Orders as well as Orders without jurisdictional power. This introduces confusion instead of clarity!
.
Therefore, it would seem this quote from Miaskiewicz contains a mistake. Where it has "distinctly separate" it ought to have "distinguished." If those words are replaced, it would say:
.
It's not a mistake, to be sure.
.
Teleologically, orders and jurisdiction are meant to converge. Ontologically, they do not. A man may indeed have orders without any jurisdiction, and a man may indeed have jurisdiction without orders. To the latter idea (having jurisdiction without orders, which is probably the "weirder" sounding idea), one might think of Pope Pius II, who when elected pope was not even a priest, and was never a priest (he died within a month, before he could secure orders). Or of St. Ambrose, who likewise had no orders at all when he was elected bishop. Such men received jurisdiction from the office completely even before they received holy orders.
.
Besides that, if the two could not be separated, then large swaths of canon law which deal with how men with orders get jurisdiction would be entirely superfluous. The idea of jurisdiction being supplied at all is a non-sequitur if orders can't be separated from it. As a matter of course, men who receive orders don't have jurisdiction until someone gives it to them.
-
ETA I don't think it was Pope Pius II-- it was one of the Piccolomini popes, who was elected as a deacon.
-
For those who believe that cuм ex is still in force, then +Thuc, being suspect of deviating from the faith after 1938 (he was Novus Ordo off and on), lost his office before consecrating bishops. This makes all +Thuc consecration of bishops invalid, does it not?
Uhm, no. You do realize that even non-Catholic bishops can validly consecrate, right?
-
Uhm, no. You do realize that even non-Catholic bishops can validly consecrate, right?
Not according to cuм ex. It's quite explicit as regards any who were ever suspect of heresy.
-
Uhm, no. You do realize that even non-Catholic bishops can validly consecrate, right?
This was my understanding, but only if they had valid orders in the first place. Right?
-
This was my understanding, but only if they had valid orders in the first place. Right?
That's the way pretty much everyone understands it, but cuм ex condemns with loss of office and banishment of all bishops (and cardinals, popes, kings etc.) who ever deviated from the faith; "...it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration....."
-
That's the way pretty much everyone understands it, but cuм ex condemns with loss of office and banishment of all bishops (and cardinals, popes, kings etc.) who ever deviated from the faith; "...it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration....."
.
To acquire validity for the appointment. He's saying that the appointment of heretics is not valid even if they're validly consecrated
-
.
To acquire validity for the appointment. He's saying that the appointment of heretics is not valid even if they're validly consecrated
JAM posted: "Orally, the Holy Father detailed first of all, all the powers which he was giving, including the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer on them the episcopacy without their having need of pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures engaging themselves to conform to such under oath..... In a word We grant you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not by Divine Law incommunicable."
cuм ex says that for those who have ever deviated from the faith, "the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity...."
So per cuм ex, +Thuc, having been detected of deviating from the faith, lost his supposed appointment read: elevation of universal jurisdiction, a jurisdiction normally reserved only to the bishop of Rome.
So I was wrong in what cuм ex said - it says nothing about invalid consecrations.
-
So per cuм ex, +Thuc, having been detected of deviating from the faith, lost his supposed appointment read: elevation of universal jurisdiction, a jurisdiction normally reserved only to the bishop of Rome.
.
This makes literally no sense at all.
.
cuм Ex is simply codifying into the Church's positive law what all the Fathers and Doctors taught: if you're a heretic, you can't hold office in the Church, full stop. It doesn't matter if you're validly consecrated, it doesn't matter if your appointment is accepted, it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you are pope. If you're a heretic you can't have an office, full stop.
-
This was my understanding, but only if they had valid orders in the first place. Right?
But of course.
-
So per cuм ex, +Thuc, having been detected of deviating from the faith, lost his supposed appointment read: elevation of universal jurisdiction, a jurisdiction normally reserved only to the bishop of Rome.
Except if you're sedeprivationist. In that case, Thuc merely ceased to formally exercise his office during the time that he had defected; when he reverted to the faith, he took up formal office once again since it had never been materially taken from him.
-
.
This makes literally no sense at all.
.
cuм Ex is simply codifying into the Church's positive law what all the Fathers and Doctors taught: if you're a heretic, you can't hold office in the Church, full stop. It doesn't matter if you're validly consecrated, it doesn't matter if your appointment is accepted, it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you are pope. If you're a heretic you can't have an office, full stop.
Talk about making no sense at all. "...it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you *are* pope." Then what, you're really not the pope? This is supposed to make sense?
Since +Thuc lost his office due to his heresy, and certainly we all agree that by virtue of his participation in the Novus Ordo heresy, per cuм ex he indeed deviated from the faith hence lost his office, how does a bishop who loses "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power" due to heresy get any jurisdiction at all, or even having lost the power to consecrate, where does the bishop who is no longer bishop who lost "all power", get the power to consecrate?
Further, what is to be said of all those that +Thuc consecrated as bishops who are also guilty of heresy due to their participation in the NO prior to their consecrations? And then also, those +Thuc line bishops who in turn consecrated still more bishops? What about the priests they've ordained? By your reasoning, are none of them bishops or priests but only think they *are*? cuм ex does not restore any offices or rescind any of it's censures, rather, it permits the pope to sentence the repenters "to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction."
I know sedes don't answer questions and this reply has a few, so this is just food for your thought.
-
Since +Thuc lost his office due to his heresy, and certainly we all agree that by virtue of his participation in the Novus Ordo heresy, per cuм ex he indeed deviated from the faith hence lost his office, how does a bishop who loses "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power" due to heresy get any jurisdiction at all, or even having lost the power to consecrate, where does the bishop who is no longer bishop who lost "all power", get the power to consecrate?
As per always, you post from a place of ignorance and bad will. You have never been interested in sincerely looking for the truth but are always grinding your childish little anti-sede ax. Unfortunately for you, this ax has an incredibly dull blade.
You've never been one to understand the concept of a distinction. You repeatedly fail to distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. Even if you could be certain that Thuc lost office due to heresy (and this is by no means certain ... I don't think he did), it is heresy condemned by the Church to say that they cannot VALIDLY consecrate bishops. He retrains the power of orders. Even IF he had been a heretic at the time, the consecrations would still have been valid. If he did not have the proper authority to perform the consecrations, then they would be illicit. In that sense, no Traditional Catholic bishop has ever had the "power to consecrate" (to use your crudely generalized expression).
-
As per always, you post from a place of ignorance and bad will. You have never been interested in sincerely looking for the truth but are always grinding your childish little anti-sede ax. Unfortunately for you, this ax has an incredibly dull blade.
You've never been one to understand the concept of a distinction. You repeatedly fail to distinguish between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. Even if you could be certain that Thuc lost office due to heresy (and this is by no means certain ... I don't think he did), it is heresy condemned by the Church to say that they cannot VALIDLY consecrate bishops. He retrains the power of orders. Even IF he had been a heretic at the time, the consecrations would still have been valid. If he did not have the proper authority to perform the consecrations, then they would be illicit. In that sense, no Traditional Catholic bishop has ever had the "power to consecrate" (to use your crudely generalized expression).
As per always, you post from the mindset of no reading comprehension. Try actually reading cuм ex some time, then argue that Pope Paul IV is of ignorance and bad will.
cuм ex specifically states, as I quoted, those who were ever detected of deviating from the faith lose all power. Not all power except for consecrations, not all power except for ordinations, he does not say they lose "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power - but they keep their power of consecrating in order to consecrate more heretics."
Read what it says without adding your own exceptions for a change.
-
As per always, you post from the mindset of no reading comprehension. Try actually reading cuм ex some time, then argue that Pope Paul IV is of ignorance and bad will.
cuм ex specifically states, as I quoted, those who were ever detected of deviating from the faith lose all power. Not all power except for consecrations, not all power except for ordinations, he does not say they lose "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power - but they keep their power of consecrating in order to consecrate more heretics."
Read what it says without adding your own exceptions for a change.
Idiot, you need to actually understand things in a Catholic context. Like a buffoon, you read words, look them up in Webster's English dictionary, and then pontificate about theological matters of which you know absolutely nothing. It's heretical to state that a Bishop without jurisdiction cannot validly confer orders. In fact, if that's the case, the SSPX bishops are also invalid. At various times in Church history, the Church has received back into the fold schismatic/heretical bishops who had in turn been consecrated by the same ... without requiring even so much as a conditional ordination/consecration.
-
Idiot, you need to actually understand things in a Catholic context. Like a buffoon, you read words, look them up in Webster's English dictionary, and then pontificate about theological matters of which you know absolutely nothing. It's heretical to state that a Bishop without jurisdiction cannot validly confer orders. In fact, if that's the case, the SSPX bishops are also invalid. At various times in Church history, the Church has received back into the fold schismatic/heretical bishops who had in turn been consecrated by the same ... without requiring even so much as a conditional ordination/consecration.
All you are actually doing but apparently don't even realize it, is admitting that cuм ex is no longer in force, and I agree. It should be well known among the sedes that Pope St. Pius X abrogated it, but they insist it is still the law. My point is, as I said, "if you believe cuм ex is still in force...." then +Thuc, per cuм ex, had no power to confer orders and per the direction given in cuм ex, as a repented heretic, he was to be sentenced "to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction." That is what cuм ex says.
-
Read cuм ex, as it is written professor. You keep adding things to cuм ex that are not in it and contradict it - try hard as you can to avoid doing that from now on - I have confidence in you lad, you can do it!
So now you're adding to your ever-growing list of heresies the contention that orders conferred by heretics and schismatics are not valid.
You keep throwing out that expression "as it is written" while putting forth your own interpretation of what is written as being the same as what's written. You are not the least bit different from any Protestant who takes Scripture out of context, misinterprets it, and then claims that his interpretation is the Word of God. Between this and your Protestant view of the Magisterium, you are in fact a Protestant and not a Catholic.
-
All you are actually doing but apparently don't even realize it, is admitting that cuм ex is no longer in force, and I agree.
No, what I'm saying is that cuм ex is not saying that heretic bishops lose the power to validly consecrate bishops or ordain priests.
Church law CANNOT strip Sacramental powers from those who hold them. So, no Church law could mandate that a Mass offered by a laicized priest is not valid ... but only illicit and sinful. If such a priest were to offer Mass even in the face of such "legislation" (which the Church has never attempted since she knows it has no force), it would still be valid given the essential requirements for validity.
-
So now you're adding to your ever-growing list of heresies the contention that orders conferred by heretics and schismatics are not valid.
You keep throwing out that expression "as it is written" while putting forth your own interpretation of what is written as being the same as what's written. You are not the least bit different from any Protestant who takes Scripture out of context, misinterprets it, and then claims that his interpretation is the Word of God. Between this and your Protestant view of the Magisterium, you are in fact a Protestant and not a Catholic.
You really should try to lose your NO confusion. Like so many other sedes, you keep accusing me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing. Just remember I'm not the one interpreting anything, I'm the one reading it as it is written. Have you ever even read cuм ex (http://www.sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html)?
-
No, what I'm saying is that cuм ex is not saying that heretic bishops lose the power to validly consecrate bishops or ordain priests.
Church law CANNOT strip Sacramental powers from those who hold them. So, no Church law could mandate that a Mass offered by a laicized priest is not valid ... but only illicit and sinful. If such a priest were to offer Mass even in the face of such "legislation" (which the Church has never attempted since she knows it has no force), it would still be valid given the essential requirements for validity.
Yes, that is what you're admitting, you really should read cuм ex (http://www.sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html) next chance you get.
I already said I agree with you, but you are disagreeing with cuм ex.
-
I already said I agree with you, but you are disagreeing with cuм ex.
Problem is that you don't understand cuм ex or Catholic theology in general.
-
Problem is that you don't understand cuм ex or Catholic theology in general.
I understand cuм ex since it's not a parable, nor is there is anything so deep in it that it needs "expert" interpretation. It is obvious to me that one of your problems is the formal NO theological education you've had made your thinking theologically backwards, you learned to believe that all pre-V2 papal docuмents have the same built-in ambiguity that every NO papal docuмent has. Try to get yourself to read cuм ex one of these days, but you must read what it actually says, read it without interpreting it to saying opposite of what it actually says.
-
cuм Ex is simply codifying into the Church's positive law what all the Fathers and Doctors taught: if you're a heretic, you can't hold office in the Church, full stop. It doesn't matter if you're validly consecrated, it doesn't matter if your appointment is accepted, it doesn't matter even if you're elected pope and all the cardinals think you are pope. If you're a heretic you can't have an office, full stop.
cuм Ex is from the 1500s. Modernism being an 1800s (til now) attack on the Church, it seems apparent that St Pius X and Pius XII's changes to the rules for papal elections were meant to avoid a situation where most of the clergy was affected with modernistic heresy, therefore the papacy would end,because no one would be eligible to be elected. (The end of the papacy, of course, is one of freemasonic's goals, which St Pius X was WELL AWARE OF). So Pius XII re-affirmed St Pius X's conclave election rules, which suspend excommunication (and all other) penalties, so that the papacy could continue, even if it was held by heretic. This is clearly the intention of the Holy Fathers - to suspend cuм Ex for a very specific reason, after which election, the penalties return.
It is certainly a support to the idea of sedeprivationism, or a spiritually "empty" office of the pope. Yet, I think we still would need a Church decision that "pope A was excommunicated/a heretic" before we could say that the spiritual office was vacant. So it would be a case of "future proves the past", where a pope was declared an anti-pope by a future papal administration.
34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
-
cuм Ex is from the 1500s. Modernism being an 1800s (til now) attack on the Church, it seems apparent that St Pius X and Pius XII's changes to the rules for papal elections were meant to avoid a situation where most of the clergy was affected with modernistic heresy, therefore the papacy would end,because no one would be eligible to be elected. (The end of the papacy, of course, is one of freemasonic's goals, which St Pius X was WELL AWARE OF). So Pius XII re-affirmed St Pius X's conclave election rules, which suspend excommunication (and all other) penalties, so that the papacy could continue, even if it was held by heretic. This is clearly the intention of the Holy Fathers - to suspend cuм Ex for a very specific reason, after which election, the penalties return.
Well said Pax.