For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism. That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term. The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor. If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it. You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.
This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition
, it was an argumentation
. The exposition
appeared originally in The Remanant
. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation
deals with disobedience not a rejection per se
of authority. Your first posts left no door open
as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.
You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application. It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."
I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock
. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU
who has no grasp of the subject.
You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction. So what? If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities. Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?
"So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock
again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”, stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…”
it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
"... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "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."
Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.
The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'" He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms. I have already explained this question in a previous post. Try to read it more carefully. Since you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.
The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff
, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz, p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff
, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts
in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law
; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power
of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)
Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'" does so on a "case by case" basis "over individuals in need." I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.
 As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
 i) "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." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu
. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu
." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(iii) "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 Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
 i) "... the individual
is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
 There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.
"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual. No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily" with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction. If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind. In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.
Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so
...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom.
" (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).
About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century. It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area" and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy. So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution? Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?
We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny
and to not comply
. To deny
that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply
with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.
"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology. There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."
I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.