Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Ecclesiology Attacked (Read 10729 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #30 on:** December 27, 2012, 09:26:33 AM »

Did Fr Laisney ever answer the questions put to him by 'Veritas 1961'? This attack on Bishop Williamson is to be expected.

Ambrose · « **Reply #31 on:** December 27, 2012, 02:31:22 PM »

Nishant,

I think you misunderstand what John Lane has said on this point. He is not saying that the jurisdiction is supplied to the bishop giving him jurisdiciton, he is saying the act of appointment of a bishop by the anti-pope is supplied by the Church due to common error.

The argument goes thus: The jurisdiction for the anti-pope's appointment of bishops would be supplied on a case by case basis for the common good of the faithful and due to the common error about the status of the anti-pope.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #32 on:** December 27, 2012, 02:35:06 PM »

Thanks, Ambrose--I think you helped me to understand a topic I have a hard time grasping. I am not sure I understood John Lane on this subject myself until just now.

Ambrose · « **Reply #33 on:** December 27, 2012, 02:49:46 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

I'm not taking Fr. C's side by any means. I think his argument was more absurd.
"Hey we have a potential Church! Good enough!"

Lane had his own problems. The hidden Trad bishop with jurisdiction lurking somewhere is the "visible" Church?

I think Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true.

I think that's where sedes should look. BXVI is pope. It's the only route that makes sense and is left after eliminating all sede theses due to impossibility.

I am happy that you see the absurdity of Father Cekada's arguments, but you seem to act as though your position is safe and sound.

If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.

The sedevacante position is not one of impossibility. You seem to be saying that because there are difficulties in fact, that the theology is unsound.

Have you ever thought of this: If you believe that the Conciliar bishops are the visible hierarchy, then Catholics would be bound to believe them on matters of Faith, as they would be authorized witnesses of the Faith, the successors of the Apostles.

The modern ideas on resistance to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are novelties developed in the 1970's to justify a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Nishant · « **Reply #34 on:** December 27, 2012, 03:44:49 PM »

Just to be clear, Elizabeth, the principle of supplied jurisdiction is not at issue, just the extent of its application. Everyone agrees jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts when this is required, but John Lane goes slightly beyond that.

Ambrose, right. I understand John Lane's view. I think there are at least three principal problems with his theory - I mentioned one above.

1. Ordinary jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope. This is a Papal power alone, a consequence of his universal jurisdiction.

2. The Papal power does not exist at all in the Church during an interregnum. Consequently, prerogatives of the Papacy cannot be supplied at all by the Church during the sede vacante period.

The first is from Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Cajetan and numerous others. The second likewise from Cardinal Franzelin and several others.

The conclusion follows that ordinary jurisdiction cannot continue to be transmitted at all in the absence of the living person of the Pope - not just the empty seat. Cardinal Cajetan says Christ always sends His power first on the Head and only then to the rest of the body, so her Bishops cannot receive ordinary jurisdiction at all without a Pope.

For reasons John Lane himself most eloquently mentions contra Fr.Cekada, this leads to the conclusion that a sede vacante comprising the last 50 years or more does not seem possible. Fr.Cekada in turn pointed this out to him.

This is a primary reason the SSPX does not embrace sedevacantism - it leads to the precise conclusion John Lane himself deplores and tries unsuccessfully to evade.

inspiritu20 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 27, 2012, 03:47:41 PM »

Quote

If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.

I understood that all popes were pope until declared otherwise by an Ecuмenical Council...usually posthumously?

The Church only teaches infallibly when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, so it is possible for a legitimate pope to promulgate error. That could include the NO Mass, Codes of Canon Law and the docuмents of Vatican II.

It's worth mentioning that Vatican II taught nothing. Both John XIII and Paul VI declared it a pastoral council and that any teachings would be explicitly declared as such. No declarations were made, so Vatican II taught nothing and declared no new doctrine.

Ambrose · « **Reply #36 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:03:38 PM »

There was a very good article published a few years back which answered the question about the teaching of Vatican II by John Daly. I present it below:

Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly?

http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267#p8267

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #37 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:09:08 PM »

Deceivers always say "I just want to look at your book collection" then later that night after they have left you noticed that your prized tomes are all gone.

In short, Vatican II was the pastoral council that became a Superdogma and, in actual practice, it is as if the clock for the church was reset to zero Vatican II onward.

If it was just pastoral, why were the changes to the mass, the sacraments and even the ordinations issued and implemented everywhere? I mean everywhere!

Is it true that John XXIII publicly stated that the Church has no enemies?

Nathan · « **Reply #38 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:16:17 PM »

To readers of this post,

I am sorry for the change of topic (BW's ecclesiology to sedevacantism). I should have asked Ambrose to state his positions on a new thread in the Church Crisis section; but what is done is done.

Ambrose,

From your statements I see you are of a very similar position as that held by Gerry Matatics, the well known Catholic apologist. He convinced me also of those views for a short time, until I realized they are not truly Catholic, or universal. What I mean is, the sedevacantist theories can only appeal to people or countries that are generally literate (able to read all the different papal bulls, theological treatises, Denzinger, etc.). Christ founded His religion to be fully understood and lived by the educated and illiterate alike. This, among other reasons, is why I cannot adhere to the sedevacantist position. But let each of us work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and, as my mother once humorously put it, "with fear and suffering"; for the road to truth is indeed painful and laborious.

Please pray for me, as I will do also for you.

Ambrose · « **Reply #39 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:20:57 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Just to be clear, Elizabeth, the principle of supplied jurisdiction is not at issue, just the extent of its application. Everyone agrees jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts when this is required, but John Lane goes slightly beyond that.

Ambrose, right. I understand John Lane's view. I think there are at least three principal problems with his theory - I mentioned one above.

1. Ordinary jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope. This is a Papal power alone, a consequence of his universal jurisdiction.

2. The Papal power does not exist at all in the Church during an interregnum. Consequently, prerogatives of the Papacy cannot be supplied at all by the Church during the sede vacante period.

The first is from Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Cajetan and numerous others. The second likewise from Cardinal Franzelin and several others.

The conclusion follows that ordinary jurisdiction cannot continue to be transmitted at all in the absence of the living person of the Pope - not just the empty seat. Cardinal Cajetan says Christ always sends His power first on the Head and only then to the rest of the body, so her Bishops cannot receive ordinary jurisdiction at all without a Pope.

For reasons John Lane himself most eloquently mentions contra Fr.Cekada, this leads to the conclusion that a sede vacante comprising the last 50 years or more does not seem possible. Fr.Cekada in turn pointed this out to him.

This is a primary reason the SSPX does not embrace sedevacantism - it leads to the precise conclusion John Lane himself deplores and tries unsuccessfully to evade.

It seems to me that you are arguing that there is a limit to the supplied jurisdiction of the Church, even when all of the conditions are met given by the theologians. Does this summarize your position?

Ambrose · « **Reply #40 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:33:54 PM »

Quote from: Nathan

To readers of this post,

I am sorry for the change of topic (BW's ecclesiology to sedevacantism). I should have asked Ambrose to state his positions on a new thread in the Church Crisis section; but what is done is done.

Ambrose,

From your statements I see you are of a very similar position as that held by Gerry Matatics, the well known Catholic apologist. He convinced me also of those views for a short time, until I realized they are not truly Catholic, or universal. What I mean is, the sedevacantist theories can only appeal to people or countries that are generally literate (able to read all the different papal bulls, theological treatises, Denzinger, etc.). Christ founded His religion to be fully understood and lived by the educated and illiterate alike. This, among other reasons, is why I cannot adhere to the sedevacantist position. But let each of us work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and, as my mother once humorously put it, "with fear and suffering"; for the road to truth is indeed painful and laborious.

Please pray for me, as I will do also for you.

Nathan,

Ecclesiology and the current state of the Papacy are strongly related. I have met Gerry Matatics and have attended numerous lectures by him in past years.

Sedevacantism is not only for educated people. Catholics are being confronted with the greatest crisis of the Church. In the Western Schism, there were educated Catholics who tried to work out the problems and there were simple laypeople. The same is for today. There are those who have access to Church docuмents and the theologians and the time to study them and there are other Catholics who either lack the resources or the time.

You are acting as though adherence to sedevacantism is essential to the Faith or is necessary for salvation. Neither are true. Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis which systematically answers how this could have happened and how it can be end. There are errors even among some sedevacantists, so this makes this all the more complicated.

There are no easy answers in the crisis. Confusion is the order of the day. Until a Pope once again reigns, this will only get worse. Catholics will keep dividing over one issue or another. Faith and charity unite Catholics, but without a government to maintain that unity, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, Catholic unity will keep breaking down.

If a Catholic does not accept sedevacantism, then he is gravely disadvantaged in understanding a Catholic response to the crisis. He will be torn constantly between principles that pull him one way or the other. For example, the Church teaches that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation, but, to submit oneself to these anti-popes in the way Catholics are required to submit to the Pope, will lead to a loss o Faith.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #41 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:53:04 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.

I believe all this to be true.

I should qualify that as to the Mass, I mean the official Latin text of the NO w/ the Roman Canon. I'm not referring to optional concessions by the legislating "church" such as altar girls, etc. I believe that this, at minimum, is not a sinful rite and conveys grace. Nothing in the official text of the NO is heretical.

What is evil in the new Code?

The teachings of VCII do not contain heresy. Parts are ambiguous, but can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.

Quote

The sedevacante position is not one of impossibility. You seem to be saying that because there are difficulties in fact, that the theology is unsound.

I think sedevacantism doesn't see the forest for the trees. Sedevacantists are so busy discussing whether aliens come from Mars or Venus that none of them stop to think that aliens may not exist.

Quote

Have you ever thought of this: If you believe that the Conciliar bishops are the visible hierarchy, then Catholics would be bound to believe them on matters of Faith, as they would be authorized witnesses of the Faith, the successors of the Apostles.

Catholics are bound to believe the Pope when he speaks infallibly. When he is merely teaching on the ordinary level, we are simply required to give a certain form of assent, but not 100% adherence of faith.

Quote

The modern ideas on resistance to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are novelties developed in the 1970's to justify a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

It has always been Catholic teaching from the beginning to resist legitimate authority in matters of sin and error and lack of prudence. St. Paul resisted Peter, the Pope in the NT.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #42 on:** December 27, 2012, 04:57:55 PM »

Quote

Sedevacantists are so busy discussing whether aliens come from Mars or Venus that none of them stop to think that aliens may not exist.

This is a pretty senseless statement.

Sedevacantists understand that the leaders of Catholic actually have to manifest the Catholic Faith. That they can't set up organized apostasy inside the Church.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #43 on:** December 27, 2012, 05:02:51 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Sedevacantists understand that the leaders of Catholic actually have to manifest the Catholic Faith. That they can't set up organized apostasy inside the Church.

A lot of sedevacantists thinks that the leaders of the Catholic Church must manifest those sedevacantists' own particular vision of the Catholic Faith.

Nishant · « **Reply #44 on:** December 27, 2012, 05:22:50 PM »

Here, for instance, is Fr.Ramon Angles of the SSPX establishing some principles I think we all accept.

Quote

When we speak about "jurisdiction" we are actually referring to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction or government ...

This suppliance is to be conceived as a delegation by the law, delegatio a iure. The active subject of this extraordinary delegation is the common law, in the sense that is disposed in the legislation. The power is given not habitually but in actu: the agent does not possess the power before he uses it, nor does he retain it afterwards: he possesses it by delegation of the law only as long as it is necessary for the valid exercise of the act.

The Church supplies only those things which pertain to the state and condition of persons, but not the formalities required by the law for the validity of acts. Also, the Church can supply only the power which is entrusted to her, not what is required by divine or natural law (example: a layman cannot receive supplied jurisdiction to hear confessions; he is not a priest).

Note well. The Church supplies the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Bishops and priests who are deprived of ordinary jurisdiction and perform sacramental acts that require jurisdiction. But she does not possess the power of Papal jurisdiction to supply this to non-sacramental acts of appointment of Bishops to dioceses in a sede vacante. If she did, the statement of Pope Pius XII and the theologians would not be true, that the living head is a necessary channel for a new member of the episcopal body to receive ordinary jurisdiction.

The Church cannot supply prerogatives of the Papal power during a sede vacante. The Church does not have that power at all during this time, as Cardinal Franzelin said. Only when there is a living Pope can a Bishop receive the episcopal office and the ordinary jurisdiction attached to it.

John Lane is essentially claiming that the office itself is supplied! But by the very nature of supplied jurisdiction, the agent does not possess habitual jurisdiction before or after the act for which jurisdiction was supplied. This we read in all the canonists.

So if an interregnum is indefinitely extended, we will eventually be left with the "potential Church" of Fr.Cekada, an idea John Lane rightly rejects, though his own position ultimately leads to it.