Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr. Cekada Answers RR Objections  (Read 5317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
  • Reputation: +1931/-4
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Cekada Answers RR Objections
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2014, 05:58:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, Rev. S. B. SMITH, D.D. 1887

    ART. II.

    Are Bishops the Successors of the Apostles-From whom do Bishops hold?

    539. Q. In what sense are bishops the successors of the apostles?

    A.-I. It is certain that in some sense, bishops are the successors of the apostles; but in what sense? Before answering we premise: Three powers must be distinguished in the apostles: 1, the potestas sacerdotii, or the power to consecrate the body and blood of our Lord and forgive sins; I 2, the potestas ordinis episcopalis, or the plenitude of the priesthood-i.e., the power to ordain priests, confirm, etc.; 3, the potestas apostolatus-i.e., the power to forgive sins everywhere, appoint bishops all over the world, etc.:  in a word, the power to exercise, subordinately to Peter jurisdiction without any limit as to place, persons, or matters (jurisdictio universalis). These three powers  were given the apostles  by Christ himself.  

    II.  Having premised this, we reply:  I. Bishops are, as a body, not as individuals, the successors of the apostles; in other words, the collegium episcoporum succeeded the collegium apostolorum. Hence, with the exception of the Roman Pontiff and perhaps the Bishop of Jerusalem, no individual bishop can claim to be the successor of the apostles in the sense that the see occupied by him had one of the apostles for its first bishop. It cannot be said, therefore, that this or that bishop is the successor, v.g., of Andrew or John. 2. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, as to the potestas ordinis. For bishops have, by virtue of their consecration, the same character episcopalis with the apostles, and hence the same power of order. 3. Bishops, moreover, are the successors of the apostles, quoad potestatem jurisdictionis, though not quoad aequalitatem, but only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis. We say, only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis, for the jurisdiction of the apostles, as we have shown, was universal; as such it was extraordinary, personal, and therefore lapsed with the apostles. The jurisdiction of bishops, on the other hand, is particular; what the apostles could do all the world over bishops can do only in their respective dioceses.  Hence, the authority of bishops, as we have said, is similar, but not equal, to that of the apostles.

    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Cekada Answers RR Objections
    « Reply #61 on: May 15, 2014, 06:16:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

    We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.


    Quote
    From Fideliter:

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)

    Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."

    Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circumstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.

    Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?

    Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...

    Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-825
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Cekada Answers RR Objections
    « Reply #62 on: May 19, 2014, 09:05:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can anyone please point me to where any of the above quotes affirm or deny that Catholics bishops consecrated in past interregnum's lacked apostolicity?  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16