Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: MargaretOfScotland on April 14, 2023, 01:18:51 AM
-
Fr. Paul Morgan consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30377.0)
Fr. Paul Morgan, a former SSPX GB district superior, has been consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson.
Details of his first pontifical Mass to follow...
-
Bravo!
Ad multos annos!
-
Fr. Paul Morgan consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30377.0)
Fr. Paul Morgan, a former SSPX GB district superior, has been consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson.
Details of his first pontifical Mass to follow...
This is good news! Hope he will come to the Episcopal aid of Fr Joven Soliman, the first Filipino priest to be ordained for the FSSPX, who, some believe, fell on the wrong side of the Haute Couture then prevailing, and had to depart the Society. A bonus would be if Bishop Paul Morgan raises Fr Soliman himself to the Episcopacy!
-
Fr. Paul Morgan consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30377.0)
Fr. Paul Morgan, a former SSPX GB district superior, has been consecrated a bishop by Bp. Williamson.
Details of his first pontifical Mass to follow...
Great News!
When do you suppose he'll come to America to give us the Sacraments? :popcorn:
Our current North American Resistance bishop is disinclined to do so.
-
Our current North American Resistance bishop is disinclined to do so.
I'd say that's a bit unfair:
He runs 3 chapels spread out between Kansas, Texas, and New York, and has only one priest (Fr. Brocard) working with him. All of those locations have schools, and the Kansas one now has a fledgling pre-seminary/house of formation.
Besides all that, he still runs confirmation and ordination circuits all over the world.
In my estimation, that's quite a lot for 1-2 men, and I'm not sure how much more they could really bite off.
-
BZ also has other Mass sites he visits monthly
-
The Texas school shut down a few years ago, mostly due to a hurricane that hit right before. The building wasn't damaged, but many families were! Some families at his Houston chapel lost everything.
Yes, Bp. Z has several "mission" chapels that get monthly Mass in addition to his 3 main chapels. They are located near his main chapels, etc.
His Houston chapel no longer gets *regular schedule, morning Sunday Mass* but instead they get Sunday Mass every Sunday, but at different times by different priests who fill in. The parishioners in Houston see a lot more variety of priests these days -- but read the next sentence.
But as for how many helpers Bp. Z has (or doesn't have), let's put it this way: the last 4 Masses at our chapel here have been Bp. Z himself. That's how many helpers he has.
(Note: the Houston chapel gets a few more priests than the mission chapel near San Antonio, for the simple reason that not every priest willing to serve the Houston chapel is also willing/able to make an 8 hour driving circuit. So when Bp. Z asks a priest "Would you be willing to offer Mass in Houston this week? And drive 4 hours one-way to say Mass near San Antonio?" the answer is often "1. Yes, 2. No".)
So yeah, I'm thinking Bp. Z has plenty to take care of already. It's just not God's will that he take care of any more people/locations. If God wanted more, He would have either A) given Bp. Z the power of miracles for example Bi-location, or B) sent him more priest helpers.
But Bp. Z is doing everything he can. He's not sitting around recreating. He's constantly either performing priestly duties and/or in the midst of travel to his next destination.
And while he's one of the younger +Williamson-line bishops, he's still not exactly in his 20's!
Give the poor man a break, will you?
-
Our traditional bishops and clergy work their tails off. I am just happy this this new bishop is a true bishop, not a fake New Rite bishop. It's getting to the point where we can only rely on Resistance and Sede bishops to be Old Rite.
-
Our traditional bishops and clergy work their tails off. I am just happy this this new bishop is a true bishop, not a fake New Rite bishop. It's getting to the point where we can only rely on Resistance and Sede bishops to be Old Rite.
And the validity! It's of crucial importance to know that your bishop is a bishop -- because you must know that your priests are priests. That is not a nice extra, it is of utmost importance. The fact is that +Lefebvre line bishops are the most certain you can get. Let's just say they're tied for "most certain". You can't get any better. You can get the same, you can get worse -- but not better.
-
Now we have three new bishops consecrated by Bp. Williamson: Bp. Ballini, Italian, Bp. Morgan, English, and Bp. Stobnicki, Polish.
-
I would also like to comment --
Let us not confuse the objective TRIALS that God is allowing for Trad Catholics in 2023 with the FAULT or FAILURE of any particular prelate.
+ABL, +Williamson, +Zendejas et al. are not responsible for the Crisis in the Church, nor are they responsible for any recent intensification of evils in the world. They aren't responsible for the fall of the SSPX, Modernism, secularism, wokeness, COVID, economic crisis and manipulations, the WEF, or all the other countless evils Catholics living in the world fight on a daily basis.
God seems to be allowing great trials for some very holy priests, for His own good reasons. Who dares to criticize God? But I think some go ahead and criticize various priests and bishops instead, as if it were THEIR fault, or that's the best they can do. But no, really, if you want to criticize, you really should aim it at God Himself (which I MUST immediately add, God forbid!) I'm not saying you should criticize or complain to God. But if you MUST, then honestly God is really the only proper Recipient of your anger and frustration.
Just like a husband frustrated with the current state of his life can only blame A) God, B) Himself, C) take it out on his wife & family. No one wants to blame himself. And of course many are reluctant to blame God for allowing sufferings and trials. So you're left with C). Not fair to that wife and family! I don't care if you have no one else to blame.
Likewise, I'm here to say: Not fair to Bp. Zendejas! I don't care if you have no one else to blame.
-
And the validity! It's of crucial importance to know that your bishop is a bishop -- because you must know that your priests are priests. That is not a nice extra, it is of utmost importance.
Yes, I implied that with referring to the new bishop as a "true" bishop, but I probably should have been more explicit.
-
And the validity! It's of crucial importance to know that your bishop is a bishop -- because you must know that your priests are priests. That is not a nice extra, it is of utmost importance. The fact is that +Lefebvre line bishops are the most certain you can get. Let's just say they're tied for "most certain". You can't get any better. You can get the same, you can get worse -- but not better.
I would have to admit that most of what I hear about Bishop Zendejas is from a very few 2nd or 3rd comments. It would be nice to read or hear something directly from him.
Definitely valid orders and valid sacraments are on top of the list during this crisis. When I cannot confirm the validity, I will avoid receiving the sacraments and even for the subsequent weekdays.
Is this validity of the outmost importance include the papacy? I hear a lot of comments from "pro-Francis Papacy" members that consider the the new rites doubtful. I think most of us feel very strongly about having this positive doubt. How does this fit into recognizing Francis legitimacy?
-
Is this validity of the outmost importance include the papacy? I hear a lot of comments from "pro-Francis Papacy" members that consider the the new rites doubtful.
No.
The validity of the current/recent pope(s) has NO bearing on the validity of the Mass or sacraments we receive from our Trad priests during this time of emergency.
You can't equate "Is he a priest?" with "Let us solve the Crisis in the Church with full certainty." as questions of equivalent urgency, importance -- or possibility.
Figuring out if a given man is a valid priest -- that we can do. Figuring out a supernatural mystery? Not so much.
Granted, the Crisis in the Church (and the Mass, the Papacy, etc.) is of the utmost importance -- but it fails in the possible for humans to solve department.
However, you can't just leave "Is he a priest?" for God to sort out later, decades from now. Because in the meantime, all your confessions could be invalid (if your "priest" turns out to be invalidly ordained) and all your "communions" could turn out to be mere bread. See the difference, bozo?
Next.
-
No.
The validity of the current/recent pope(s) has NO bearing on the validity of the Mass or sacraments we receive from our Trad priests during this time of emergency.
You can't equate "Is he a priest?" with "Let us solve the Crisis in the Church with full certainty." as questions of equivalent urgency, importance -- or possibility.
Figuring out if a given man is a valid priest -- that we can do. Figuring out a supernatural mystery? Not so much.
Granted, the Crisis in the Church (and the Mass, the Papacy, etc.) is of the utmost importance -- but it fails in the possible for humans to solve department.
However, you can't just leave "Is he a priest?" for God to sort out later, decades from now. Because in the meantime, all your confessions could be invalid (if your "priest" turns out to be invalidly ordained) and all your "communions" could turn out to be mere bread. See the difference, bozo?
Next.
I think he was referring to Bergoglio's doubtful episcopal consecration since it is New Rite.
-
No.
The validity of the current/recent pope(s) has NO bearing on the validity of the Mass or sacraments we receive from our Trad priests during this time of emergency.
You can't equate "Is he a priest?" with "Let us solve the Crisis in the Church with full certainty." as questions of equivalent urgency, importance -- or possibility.
Figuring out if a given man is a valid priest -- that we can do. Figuring out a supernatural mystery? Not so much.
Granted, the Crisis in the Church (and the Mass, the Papacy, etc.) is of the utmost importance -- but it fails in the possible for humans to solve department.
However, you can't just leave "Is he a priest?" for God to sort out later, decades from now. Because in the meantime, all your confessions could be invalid (if your "priest" turns out to be invalidly ordained) and all your "communions" could turn out to be mere bread. See the difference, bozo?
Next.
bozo? I did not mean to offend you and apologize if i did. You seem so certain that these new rite clerics are not valid. How can this not spill over into the requirements for a legitimate papacy? I take it that by "figuring out validity", the farthest you can take it is to avoid all new rite sacraments. But this positive doubt is not enough for you determine if Francis is legitimate or not.
-
I take it that by "figuring out validity", the farthest you can take it is to avoid all new rite sacraments. But this positive doubt is not enough for you determine if Francis is legitimate or not.
You're completely missing the point.
The exact nature of the Crisis in the Church (what exactly happened in and around the 1960's, esp. with the Papacy, etc.) has not been solved yet. You might think it has, but it hasn't. All Catholics of moderate intelligence and good will are NOT on one side about this -- not yet.
It is my personal opinion that the Crisis in the Church is a supernatural mystery, like the Holy Trinity, that the mind of Man could NOT figure out on its own power, without God stepping in and revealing it to us.
So you see, trying to "determine if Francis is legitimate or not" would be a waste of time, since it's unreachable by human powers and reason -- at least according to my opinion.
Why do I think that? What brought me to that opinion? Oh, I don't know -- maybe the past 53 years of Crisis during which time countless learned, brilliant and holy men from all parts of the earth have tried -- and failed -- to unite the whole of the Remnant behind one, exact, coherent explanation which answers ALL objections and leaves NO unanswered questions or objections.
Sorry, but God is going to have to untie this knot for us. Until He deigns to do so, it shall remain tied.
And frankly, even if the solution HAD been uttered by some cleric(s) and/or laymen during this past 53 years, who's to force the entire Catholic world to submit to it? Who can bind consciences on a disputed point with no means to prove who is right or wrong? Who can say "I have the Answer Key/Teacher's Manual from God -- and it says here that I'm right!"
When the Crisis involves the very principle of unity and authority -- the Pope -- what makes us different from the Protestants BTW -- who can repair that? Who is higher than the Pope, who could fix a broken Pope situation?
God. Perhaps through the agency of one of His angels, St. Peter, etc. But that still involves God stepping in, so we're back to my main thesis.
-
All we have is a link to another forum with no further evidence, how do we know this information is official?
-
Great news! We certainly need more good Bishops
-
bozo? I did not mean to offend you and apologize if i did. You seem so certain that these new rite clerics are not valid. How can this not spill over into the requirements for a legitimate papacy? I take it that by "figuring out validity", the farthest you can take it is to avoid all new rite sacraments. But this positive doubt is not enough for you determine if Francis is legitimate or not.
I don't;t think you aren't missing anything at all. If I'm understanding you, you are asking whether those who believe the NREC is doubtful/invalid also believe that it is at least doubtful that Francis is a true bishop since he was consecrated in the New Rite too. And if they do believe that that makes him a doubtful bishop, how does that affect their position on his legitimacy as Bishop of Rome/pope. Is that what you are asking?
-
So you see, trying to "determine if Francis is legitimate or not" would be a waste of time, since it's unreachable by human powers and reason -- at least according to my opinion.
Good reasoning. We arrived at the same conclusion years ago-- and ABL long before that
-
I don't;t think you aren't missing anything at all. If I'm understanding you, you are asking whether those who believe the NREC is doubtful/invalid also believe that it is at least doubtful that Francis is a true bishop since he was consecrated in the New Rite too. And if they do believe that that makes him a doubtful bishop, how does that affect their position on his legitimacy as Bishop of Rome/pope. Is that what you are asking?
yes, that is correct. If I feel so strongly and certain that the NREC is invalid that compels me to avoid this NREC priest/bishop, how can this not influence recognizing the Bishop of Rome/Pope? As far as I know this would be unavoidable since one of the requirements for a pope is to be a valid bishop. Technically, this specific question has nothing to do what happen 53 years ago. It is what is happening now. According to everyone's concern with the NREC, the last two popes are not even valid bishops. You can't use this argument with their predecessors.
This Crisis is not my problem to solve; I am just observing and to trying to clear up what appears to be contradictions.
-
It is what is happening now. According to everyone's concern with the NREC, the last two popes are not even valid bishops. You can't use this argument with their predecessors.
This Crisis is not my problem to solve; I am just observing and to trying to clear up what appears to be contradictions.
AS I SAID, this Crisis hasn't been solved. That includes (especially!) the Sedevecantist "solution". It leaves plenty of unanswered, gaping holes and questions.
For example, the bit about Peter having perpetual successors. The gates of Hell not prevailing over the Church. And if you believe Pope Pius XII was the last pope, we're in a 65 year Interregnum AND COUNTING.
Show me a Church Father who said that was possible. I'll wait.
My point stands. With or without Sedevacantism, we're in the same boat. Crisis Status: UNSOLVED.
-
As far as I know this would be unavoidable since one of the requirements for a pope is to be a valid bishop.
Not necessarily. Even if Francis isn't a valid bishop, assuming his election was valid, he'd be a papal-elect. So, in theory, the office would be filled (from a human/govt aspect) but it would be vacant (spiritually) until he were made a bishop and accepted properly.
There were examples in history where young men were appointed bishops of their diocese, and they weren't even priests. So, in theory, this could happen to a pope.
To Matthew's point, the papacy is a mystery. The idea that a man can be the "Vicar of Christ" and "infallible" is nothing short of a heavenly miracle. Only God knows the limits of what He will allow and won't - and every crisis in Church history always proves this. Once the dust settles and calm returns to the Church, we'll say (just like many people before us have said), "Well, I didn't think God would allow that to happen, but He did. And I didn't think He would settle that problem so quickly and definitively, but He did. And I see now the benefit to the Church, in having gone through all of that, for now doctrine x, y or z is more fully understood and appreciated. Blessed be God!"
-
Mathew, I never made a case for sedevacantism, I never said I solved the Crisis, I never said that having positive doubt about Francis papacy would solve the Crisis. I am looking for a coherent defense that recognizing that there is positive doubt in the NREC does not logically conclude positive doubt of the Bishop of Rome. The answer I get is that it is mystery even though we have Vatican1 and are aware of the impediments to a valid election taught by the Church. The Crisis is a mystery but not every symptom of the crisis is.
-
Mathew, I never made a case for sedevacantism, I never said I solved the Crisis, I never said that having positive doubt about Francis papacy would solve the Crisis. I am looking for a coherent defense that recognizing that there is positive doubt in the NREC does not logically conclude positive doubt of the Bishop of Rome. The answer I get is that it is mystery even though we have Vatican1 and are aware of the impediments to a valid election taught by the Church. The Crisis is a mystery but not every symptom of the crisis is.
It would be nice if people would use the search function before barfing up the same old stuff. We just had a thread about the answer to the question (statement, really) you are making (and you’ve been here long enough to know it).
-
Mathew, I never made a case for sedevacantism, I never said I solved the Crisis, I never said that having positive doubt about Francis papacy would solve the Crisis. I am looking for a coherent defense that recognizing that there is positive doubt in the NREC does not logically conclude positive doubt of the Bishop of Rome. The answer I get is that it is mystery even though we have Vatican1 and are aware of the impediments to a valid election taught by the Church. The Crisis is a mystery but not every symptom of the crisis is.
I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.
I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.
However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels
Isn't that interesting?
-
I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.
I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.
However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels
Isn't that interesting?
Well, what if he doesn't see himself as holding the place of Christ?
Pope Francis: I’m Not The Vicar of Christ or Successor of the Apostles! Titles Mere Footnote
https://catholictruthscotland.com/2020/04/03/pope-francis-im-not-the-vicar-of-christ-or-successor-of-the-apostles/
And second, what if that isn't even the Catholic Church but
the false church of Chrislam
as they themselves declare it to be?
-
I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.
I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.
However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels
Isn't that interesting?
Yes, that is interesting. I have to admit when I come across valuable quotes like this, I have to reread it a couple times and then follow with the source and then look for commentary. I have not come to any hard conclusions at this time. There are usually distinctions that have to made.
What does "character of order" mean? Does it mean these true bishops and priests can be lacking the sacramental character of Holy Orders? The mystery continues...
-
I understand exactly where you are coming from, Comrade, it is a very pertinent question, an inevitable question, I would say, for anyone seriously trying to make sense of the crisis.
I agree with Matthew that there is a certain element of mystery involved that can only be resolved with the full weight of the Church's Authority.
However, in the meantime, the following teaching of St Robert Bellarmine certainly provides a "coherent defence" of this position of a Pope with doubtful orders being Pope nonetheless:
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church... - St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: On The Church, Bk III On The Church Militant, Ch X On Secret Infidels
Isn't that interesting?
Since when is Bergoglio a secret infidel/occult heretic? How does this apply?
-
Not necessarily. Even if Francis isn't a valid bishop, assuming his election was valid, he'd be a papal-elect. So, in theory, the office would be filled (from a human/govt aspect) but it would be vacant (spiritually) until he were made a bishop and accepted properly.
Papal Elect is still not pope.
-
Since when is Bergoglio a secret infidel/occult heretic? How does this apply?
Watching the video with Fr MacGillivray I posted about papal heresy and loss of office should explain it to you, though I don't think he goes far enough. Just questioning the Pope should be sufficient to determine if he is a manifest or secret heretic, and judge him accordingly.
-
Yes, that is interesting. I have to admit when I come across valuable quotes like this, I have to reread it a couple times and then follow with the source and then look for commentary. I have not come to any hard conclusions at this time. There are usually distinctions that have to made.
What does "character of order" mean? Does it mean these true bishops and priests can be lacking the sacramental character of Holy Orders? The mystery continues...
Hi Comrade,
There are other ways to look at the situation besides focusing on the NREC. Most importantly, Bergoglio is not even a "sacerdotal priest" (in the sense of a priest endowed with the power to "offer the Body and Blood of Our Lord for the living and the dead"). The New Rite of Priestly Ordination removed that power. In doing so, the NRPO has tacitly redefined the priesthood.
The NRPO "priests" are empowered, by the specific prayers of the Rite, to offer the "the oblation of the holy people, the gifts to be offered to God." This new power precisely corresponds to the NO Offertory prayers, which offer the "work of human hands," rather than offering the "immaculate victim." This type of offering is alluded to figuratively in Genesis as the "offering of Cain," an offering that was displeasing to God. This is the "grain offering," the Sacrifice of "the Eucharist," i.e., the sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving." The Lutherans and Anglicans pulled the same trick hundreds of years before, and Leo XIII invalidated their orders.
So, these NRPO "priests" are "ordained" by a rite approved by the NuChurch. They are called "priests." But they are not true sacerdotal priests as understood by traditional Catholic sacramental theology. The remission of sins only comes from the offering of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the hands of a sacerdotal priest. The NRPO does not include prayers that ask God to bestow that power on those Novus Ordo "priests." God does not give what is not asked for. So, in essence, the NRPO "priest" is something in between a deacon and a true sacerdotal priest. He can offer "the sacrifice of praise," but he is a handicapped "priest" from the traditional perspective.
Traditionally, a Catholic bishop must first be a sacerdotal priest. It is the sacerdotal priesthood that is the most important element.
Now, what does all of this mean for Bergoglio? Since he is not a true sacerdotal priest, it is ontologically impossible for him to be the Vicar of Christ.
-
Papal Elect is still not pope.
Obviously not. But a papal-elect is not insignificant either. Some argue a bishop-elect or a papal-elect would have immediate (human/govt) jurisdiction while waiting for the full, spiritual office to be fulfilled.
So, arguably, the papal chair is filled “in potentia” from a spiritual aspect (ie latent, unused powers) and in reality, from a govt/human aspect.
-
I don’t think Matthew thinks there zero doubt that Francis is the pope, just that it’s not his job to solve that problem
He wouldn’t need to be certain about that one way or another. Whereas he WOULD need certainty that his own priest is valid. He’s not saying (I don’t think) that he’s sure about the new bishops one way or another .
-
Obviously not. But a papal-elect is not insignificant either. Some argue a bishop-elect or a papal-elect would have immediate (human/govt) jurisdiction while waiting for the full, spiritual office to be fulfilled.
So, arguably, the papal chair is filled “in potentia” from a spiritual aspect (ie latent, unused powers) and in reality, from a govt/human aspect.
I understand what you were/are saying PV. However, Comrade's question was how the lack of a valid episcopal consecration affects Bergoglio as pope, not whether he has the potential to become pope.
-
I don’t think Matthew thinks there zero doubt that Francis is the pope, just that it’s not his job to solve that problem
He wouldn’t need to be certain about that one way or another. Whereas he WOULD need certainty that his own priest is valid. He’s not saying (I don’t think) that he’s sure about the new bishops one way or another .
OK, understood. But doesn't Bergoglio as "Bishop of Rome" ordain priests, consecrate holy oils that are used in other sacraments like other bishops do ("Bishop" Huonder comes to mind)? Wouldn't that affect people's ability to access valid sacraments if even on a smaller scale?
-
OK, understood. But doesn't Bergoglio as "Bishop of Rome" ordain priests, consecrate holy oils that are used in other sacraments like other bishops do ("Bishop" Huonder comes to mind)? Wouldn't that affect people's ability to access valid sacraments if even on a smaller scale?
These are all arguments in favor of the validity of the NREC.
-
These are all arguments in favor of the validity of the NREC.
Or that we are witnessing the Great Apostasy at work in the Ape Church spoken of by Fulton Sheen.
-
However, Comrade's question was how the lack of a valid episcopal consecration affects Bergoglio as pope, not whether he has the potential to become pope.
Assuming Fr Jorge isn't a bishop (and that's a good assumption) then he would be "pope elect" just like if the Cardinals elected a deacon or some priest to be pope (which is theoretically possible). In the past, similar situations happened with priests being chosen as the new bishop of a diocese. Since they weren't bishops yet, they were a "bishop elect". In olden days, it could take a while for a bishop to travel and consecrate the "bishop elect" so he would be able to run the diocese immediately, from a govt/admin aspect.
In the same way, as "pope elect" Fr Jorge would, arguably, have immediate govt/human authority but not spiritual authority (until he became a proper bishop and finished the papal ceremonies). That's what theologians have speculated based on real life episodes in the past.
-
Just wondering who will become the new SSPX Resistances leader when the "Bishop Of Broadstairs" leaves this earth?
Will they cast lots?
-
Just wondering who will become the new SSPX Resistances leader when the "Bishop Of Broadstairs" leaves this earth?
Will they cast lots?
I was just wondering the same. Lets pray he doesn't go any time soon.
I also wonder if they would start consecrating Bishops left and right.
-
I wonder what Bp. Morgan's stance on the vaccine will be.
-
Assuming Fr Jorge isn't a bishop (and that's a good assumption) then he would be "pope elect" just like if the Cardinals elected a deacon or some priest to be pope (which is theoretically possible). In the past, similar situations happened with priests being chosen as the new bishop of a diocese. Since they weren't bishops yet, they were a "bishop elect". In olden days, it could take a while for a bishop to travel and consecrate the "bishop elect" so he would be able to run the diocese immediately, from a govt/admin aspect.
In the same way, as "pope elect" Fr Jorge would, arguably, have immediate govt/human authority but not spiritual authority (until he became a proper bishop and finished the papal ceremonies). That's what theologians have speculated based on real life episodes in the past.
Interesting. That does enter into the material-formal thesis of sedevacantism. A good example of what you describe would be that of Bishop Juan de Zumárraga of México, who was actually not consecrated a bishop yet until over a year after the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
-
Assuming Fr Jorge isn't a bishop (and that's a good assumption) then he would be "pope elect" just like if the Cardinals elected a deacon or some priest to be pope (which is theoretically possible). In the past, similar situations happened with priests being chosen as the new bishop of a diocese. Since they weren't bishops yet, they were a "bishop elect". In olden days, it could take a while for a bishop to travel and consecrate the "bishop elect" so he would be able to run the diocese immediately, from a govt/admin aspect.
In the same way, as "pope elect" Fr Jorge would, arguably, have immediate govt/human authority but not spiritual authority (until he became a proper bishop and finished the papal ceremonies). That's what theologians have speculated based on real life episodes in the past.
Again, the issue is whether Jorge is currently pope (and he was ordained a priest in the New Rite as well, so not "Fr" either) if he was not consecrated a true bishop. At this moment in time, if one believes the NREC is invalid, then he is not pope ....yet.....if a person believes that being consecrated a true bishop would make that happen. The fact that one performs certain duties of a pope still doesn't make one a pope. Even those who hold the Cassiciacuм Thesis, don't believe he is pope.
-
Just wondering who will become the new SSPX Resistances leader when the "Bishop Of Broadstairs" leaves this earth?
Will they cast lots?
That is an interesting question. Whereas the SSPX has a method to determine their new superior general, it doesn't seem like there is a method to determine the new leader of the Resistance. Of course, if I remember correctly, Bishop Williamson never considered himself as such.
-
Yes. Bishop Williamson always wanted to diffuse a "leadership" role for himself. It was a only a natural presumption since he was the first SSPX Bishop forced into an independent role.