Author Topic: Living Popes (Read 36632 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #255 on:** December 19, 2014, 12:34:10 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lepanto Again
During the Great Western Schism (1378-1418) the Pope was not visible to the faithful for 40 years. Three men claimed to be Pope. During that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his divine power over it. The clouds which kept the true Pope from the eyes of the true Church, having dissipated, revealed the true Pope to the Church. History repeats itself. When the clouds again dissipate, God will reveal to us the true Pope.

Yes, but then just as in any legitimate interregnum, the bishops hold the keys. These bishops must be visible. If all the valid bishops are dead (which inevitable happens with a prolonged sede-vacante), then the keys are lost and there is no longer a visible magisterium. To say these bishops can be invisible is heresy, so where are they?

Cantarella invented this.

There is nothing essential to the Church's constitution for there to be any diocesan bishops. On Pentecost, and for some time thereafter, there were no dioceses. There certainly must be visible bishops, but they don't have to be appointed to dioceses.

As long as there are clergy citizens of Rome, there is the possibility of electing a bishop to the Roman diocese. The books say nothing about incardination or jurisdiction being needed merely to show a wish who they would like to have as their bishop. Laymen even participated in election at one time.

That person accepting the election there (if he has the Faith) has the universal jurisdiction to appoint men to dioceses around the world.

Nado, your ignorance is exhausting.

I am reading 1 out of 10 of your posts now.

The magisterium still existed. The magisterium must always exist but the magisterium has ended according to sede pet theory because all the bishops committed mass apostasy. Yes, the Church can still have magisterial teaching without a Pope in legit inter-regnums because it resides with the bishops, but in the sede world, where all lunacies are possible, there is no longer need of bishops...or cardinals...or priests....We are an invisible Church. We can reasonably expect an indefinite sede - vacante that ends up with a couple of archangels placing the tiara on the new Pope. Why not?

Nobody · « **Reply #256 on:** December 19, 2014, 01:06:29 PM »

Nado,

It is clear that you continuously 'miss the ball' and you are just making yourself and the group you try to represent look foolish.

Why not practice a little bit of humility and stop arguing about things that go above your head.

Quote

Peter 5:5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another: for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.

Nishant · « **Reply #257 on:** December 21, 2014, 08:31:58 AM »

Quote from: First Vatican Council

just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

"Shepherds and teachers" [pastores et doctores] means bishops who have received power to rule and teach, who have been sent and obtained their share in the power of the keys from Peter's hands. Such bishops will exist until the end of time, and the formal Apostolic succession depends on it. Apostolic succession requires the actual succession to an episcopal see, in an unbroken line going back to St. Peter and the Apostles. Any theology manual, and even the CE, will tell you this, the form of Apostolic succession is the governing power or jurisdiction, represented in Scripture and Tradition by the "keys".

Quote from: Dom Gueranger

"Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome ... they have not been sent, they are not pastors. Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name.

Apostolic and Petrine succession are interlinked. What both of you are proposing, Nado and Lepanto again, that there need be no more such bishops in the Church, is heterodox, it is directly opposed to the dogmatic statement of Vatican I above, and the explanation by Gueranger and other theologians.

Cantarella · « **Reply #258 on:** December 21, 2014, 12:20:13 PM »

The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.

Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.

What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.

peterp · « **Reply #259 on:** December 21, 2014, 12:34:33 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Teaching doesn't require jurisdiction. And, there is such a thing as supplied jurisdiction in extreme circuмstances. This, plus the fact that traditionalist bishops have a visible lineage, means there is nothing against the Vatican Council.

This is false, only the local Ordinary can grant this faculty. As Miaskiwicz says, … the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty of preaching in the parish to any one who does not possess the right to do so either by law, or ex officio, or by the delegation of the Ordinary of the place. (p.229). The Church would not supply.

Adolphus · « **Reply #260 on:** December 21, 2014, 01:58:00 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Nado

Teaching doesn't require jurisdiction. And, there is such a thing as supplied jurisdiction in extreme circuмstances. This, plus the fact that traditionalist bishops have a visible lineage, means there is nothing against the Vatican Council.

This is false, only the local Ordinary can grant this faculty. As Miaskiwicz says, … the Code is very specific in stating that the pastor cannot validly grant the faculty of preaching in the parish to any one who does not possess the right to do so either by law, or ex officio, or by the delegation of the Ordinary of the place. (p.229). The Church would not supply.

And this is something in which many —if not all— traditionalist priests have failed. And this includes SSPX, neo-SSPX and the so-called resistance priests as well.

Adolphus · « **Reply #261 on:** December 21, 2014, 02:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.

Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.

What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.

When you write sedes, do you refer to sedeplenists or to sedevacantists or to sedeprivationists?

Cantarella · « **Reply #262 on:** December 21, 2014, 04:04:25 PM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Cantarella
The loss of jurisdiction means the loss of Apostolicity, which is one of the marks of the Church. Holy orders are simply not enough; one needs jurisdiction as well. With the loss of Apostolicity the Church loses the other marks (unity, catholicity, holiness). The Roman Pontiff is the perpetual principle of Unity, through which apostolicity continues, as infallibly declared in Vatican I Council. The jurisdiction granted by Jesus Christ to Peter and the Apostles has been handed down by the successors of St. Peter in all generations. This is what Vatican I means when it says the Popes shall reign in perpetuity.

Thus during a Papal interregnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. Some misguided people would say "oh, the Church supplies jurisdiction", but that is not accurate. Supplied jurisdiction comes about through a confusion due to a particular law, and it flows from the Church's ordinary jurisdiction. If a whole generation has had no Pope, then Ordinary jurisdiction has been lost, which means there cannot be supplied jurisdiction, meaning the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.

What sedes propose is a complete new religion, not different from a Protestant sect.

When you write sedes, do you refer to sedeplenists or to sedevacantists or to sedeprivationists?

Evidently, the reference is to sedevacantists. :rolleyes:

"Sedeplenism" is simply the default Catholic position. What a novel term!

Cantarella · « **Reply #263 on:** December 21, 2014, 05:46:00 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.

Again,

"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.

First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.

Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.

We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn.

Nishant · « **Reply #264 on:** December 22, 2014, 11:05:34 PM »

It's Christmas week, I'm not in the mood for getting into a doctrinal fight, but I must point out that the error that has been made in this thread is objectively quite serious. As for the quote, it is exact, here's a more complete citation, if someone wants to examine the context, from an online source. Formal Apostolic succession requires being sent by the Pope, it requires the actual succession to an episcopal see, just like the Petrine succession requires an unbroken line of successors from St. Peter to the present day. One becomes a member of the episcopal college through the pontifical institution. Pastors or shepherds refer to those with power to rule and teach, which is what ordinary power of jurisdiction is. This power is received by pastors upon their "being sent" i.e. receiving a mission from the universal Pastor, the Supreme Pontiff.

Quote from: Woywod, Successors to the Apostles

210. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope ... 213. Every candidate to the episcopate, even those elected, presented or designated by the civil government, needs the canonical provision or institution in order to be the lawful bishop of a vacant diocese. The only one to institute a bishop is the Roman Pontiff.

Quote from: Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones

formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.

Quote from: First Vatican Council

So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm

Merry Christmas to all.

Stubborn · « **Reply #265 on:** December 23, 2014, 04:11:57 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.

Again,

"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.

First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.

Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.

We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn.

No, Noda is not stubborn, I'm stubborn, Nado is permanently contrary for the sake of being permanently contrary.

Nado uses epikeia as though it is a shield against truth.

Cantarella · « **Reply #266 on:** December 23, 2014, 03:49:05 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Lepanto Again
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.

Again,

"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.

First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.

Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.

We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn.

Never heard that before. Supplied Jurisdiction was always if a person is in danger of death: until the apostasy overwhelmed the minds of men!

It doesn't just pertain to danger of death. Here is a quote from A Catholic Dictionary before the apostasy:

"In the case of a common error or a positive and probable doubt, either of law or of fact, the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction, in both the external and internal forum, to make the act valid."

Yes, but supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums and these Bishops must be visible, but sedes simply do not know who these are.

"Supplied jurisdiction" cannot work if there is no visible, living, Magisterium to supply it. Contrary to sedes' claims, Our Lord promised the visible Magisterium to exist forever and is that visible magisterium which supplies the jurisdiction.

Cantarella · « **Reply #267 on:** December 23, 2014, 04:10:12 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Lepanto Again
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

Epikeia is just that, where one sees an ecclesiastical law, in an extraordinary circuмstance, is a hindrance which the author of it did not intend. There is also the principle of a doubtful law does not bind.

Again,

"Epikeia" as found in canon 209 provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt for the benefit of the faithful, in cases where it is missing. This is NOT a replacement for jurisdiction nor a free pass for doing whatever one wants with the Ecclesiastical Law.

First of all, Epikeia "does not render an incompetent agent habitually competent". Thus for example, an invalidly elected bishop will never be the true bishop unless and until he is elected in the proper manner or has the matter sanated by the Holy See.

Secondly, the Church supplies only those things which are pertinent to the state and conditions of persons. It is actually used in extremely rare cases.

We have gone this road before but Nado is stubborn.

Never heard that before. Supplied Jurisdiction was always if a person is in danger of death: until the apostasy overwhelmed the minds of men!

It doesn't just pertain to danger of death. Here is a quote from A Catholic Dictionary before the apostasy:

"In the case of a common error or a positive and probable doubt, either of law or of fact, the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction, in both the external and internal forum, to make the act valid."

Yes, but supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops) during interregnums and these Bishops must be visible, but sedes simply do not know who these are.

"Supplied jurisdiction" cannot work if there is no visible, living, Magisterium to supply it. Contrary to sedes' claims, Our Lord promised the visible Magisterium to exist forever and is that visible magisterium which supplies the jurisdiction.

I have already answered this, but will do so again.

It is automatically supplied by the Church. That means that Christ, as the Head of the Church, automatically supplies the necessary jurisdiction to make the act valid. It has nothing to do with contacting anyone, or whether there is an interregnum or not.

I had also given a full definition of Magisterium, and it shows that it is visible, and includes the sedevacantists.

More Ad Hoc Fallacies... :rolleyes: Sedevacantists use ad hoc reasoning to the point of inventing a whole new religion no different from an invisible Calvinist sect.

Nado is just making everything up and everyone can see it. Sorry Nado, your definitions are not in accord to the Catholic Church's teaching.

peterp · « **Reply #268 on:** December 23, 2014, 05:50:16 PM »

Quote from: Nado

It is automatically supplied by the Church. That means that Christ, as the Head of the Church, automatically supplies the necessary jurisdiction to make the act valid.

Nado, you really don't understand what you are writing about. Let me explain it to you by quoting Miaskiewicz "Jurisdictional power was conferred by Christ upon the Church. From this source the Roman Pontiff has ever drawn the plenitude of this power. And having drawn from Christ, the Church, through the Pope, has traditionally conferred upon her subjects a share in that power by means of legitimate commission." Hence, Christ is the remote source and the Pope the proximate source of jurisdiction. And in this case the law can be seen as an 'immediate source' in that it supplies "executive power of governance" (Can. 144 §1).

Further:

"... 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)

peterp · « **Reply #269 on:** December 23, 2014, 05:52:31 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Here is proof of what I have already described.

No it isn't. You simply don't understand what Miaskiewicz has written.