Author Topic: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism (Read 3557 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** November 11, 2022, 07:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2022, 06:49:58 PM

Interesting quote. I don't remember what your position is on the Church, if you've told us, but this definitely rules out the Thesis, which states that the hierarchy today are merely material and have no authority:

You're conflating the principle with your implied principle that the ENTIRE Conciliar hierarchy have defected. I don't believe that for a second. I believe that there are Catholics among the Eastern Rite bishops, and perhaps a small handful of them remaining in the West.

That's is a fatal flaw of the more radical SV thinkig where you believe that anyone who is part of the Conciliar Church is ipso facto a heretic who's ineligible to exercise formal jurisdiction. I believe that the vast majority are at least in material error, but I do not believe that all the Conciliar hierarchy are pertinacious heretics.

But, if this "rules out the Thesis," it rules out your version of straight SVism even more. Read the quote again.

Father Jurgens, the Patristics scholar, stated that during the Arian crisis, only 1-3% of the Episcoapl Sees remained Catholic, while the rest went Arian.

But the Apostolic succession is a curious thing, as there's a misconception that the material succession is almost like the bloodline of royal families. In point of fact, there's no DIRECT linkage between one bishop and his successor in any given Apostolic See.

If, say, the Bishop of, say, Antioch dies, then generally the successor is consecrated by bishops from neighboring cities. There's there's no direct material succession with regard to Holy Orders. In fact, starting about the 19th and 20th centuries, rarely was a Bishop appointed to a See who had bee a priest of the same diocese. Ordinary Jurisdiction derives from the Pope, so the Apostolic Succession is relatively loose, and it's much more complex than is indicated by that misleading quote ... misleading when it's layered on top of with various assumption (i.e. that NONE of the hirerarchs in the Conciliar Churc are Catholics) and the assumption that there's a direct line of succession from the Apostles in any given See. This succession is mostly a moral one. When the Pope appoints Father Bob from the Diocese of Pittsburgh to be Bishop Bob of Chicago, where's the continuity ... except through the GENERAL continuity vis the overall succession of the Church from the Apostles?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** November 11, 2022, 08:28:08 PM »

Quote from: DustyActual on November 11, 2022, 07:52:50 PM

Wondering what Ladislaus' thoughts on what de Lugo has said. Using my Ladislaus signal to alert him

Admittedly the graphic is very amusing. LOL.

Yeah, I've been bogged down all day with work for my job.

As per my previous post, I've argued against the notion that the ENTIRE Concliar hierarchy are heretics incapable of exercising jurisdiction. I believe that nearly all are in grave material error, but I also believe that a significant percentage of them are not pertinacious heretics who are therefore rendered incapable of exercising jurisdiction. And in the East, they've also retained the validity of the Holy Orders.

So there's no argument here between Totalists or Privationists. In fact, Totalism is much more difficult to sustain if one holds that ...

1) ALL the NO hierarchs are outside the Church ipso facto simply because they are part of the material structures of the Conciliar Church.
AND
2) That there's no mechanism remaining to transmit even materially the POTENCY for the exercise of jurisdiction.

So, the transmission of jurisdiction is not direct, where one bishop passes it down to his successor, who the passes it to his successor. It doesn't work that way, and that implied notio plays into the faulty analysis.

Christ has jurisdiction over the Church, which He then transmits to the Church through the Pope. When a Pope dies and the See is vacant, the jurisdiction reverts to Christ, who continues to supply it to the Church until a new Pope is elected to become His Vicar. But the election does not formally empower the Pope. Consequently, there's no direct transmission for formal jurisdiction there either. That to me is the key.

Let's say there's an extended papal interregnum, oh, 3 years. In the meantime the Bishop of Chicago dies. So, because there's no indication of when the papal vacancy might be resolved, the clergy of Chicago recommd a priest there to be their next bishop. So the Bishops of Clevelalnd and Detroit and St. Paul come to consecrate this man and he becomes the Bishop of Chicago. Does this Bishop have jurisdiction? Where did he get it from? Or do his priests do not have faculties to hear confessions now?

This subject of formal/material succession is much more "messy" thatn the simplistic view of that quotation would have you believe, implying almost that St. Peter appointed and consecrated his successor, who in turn appointed and consecrated his, etc. That almost never has happened.

So with that in mind, one needs to DEFINE Apostolic Succession. It's not as neat and as clean as is being pretended here.

Let's say that the Bishop of Antioch (not sure if this was the case) became an Arian and lost jurisdiction. And let's say this went for 50 or 100 years. Did the formal + material succession of that Apostolic See cease? No, of course not. It would resume the minute that a Catholic was reappointed to head the See, let's say by a Pope who declared the Arian deposed and the orthodox Catholic to take his place. But the material contiuity is certainly not direct.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** November 11, 2022, 08:49:48 PM »

There's also a bit of a conflation here between mission and jurisdiction. This notion of jurisidiction as something distinct from Holy Orders was the fruit of much later theological analysis.

In the early Church, a Bishop transmitted the mission by consecrating a bishop. This notion of Bishops who are consecrated without the intent that they be consecrated to lead Catholics (i.e. this notion of "Auxiliary" bishops or, in the East, a "Chor" bishop) tended to muddy the waters, where the notion of a Bishops with appointment vs. a bishops without appointment led to distinguishing the term "jurisdiction".

Nor was it particularly explicit that all Bishops received this appointment (aka jurisdiction) at the pleasure of the Bishop of Rome. When a Bishop died, the clergy of the area selected a candidate and neighboring bishops would come to consecrate the bishop. That bishops then was simply understood to be appointed (i.e. have legitimate mission or jurisdiction) over that area.

It was also known that defection from orthodox faith ruptured the continuity of mission.

If an entire city or region went Arian and selected an Arian bishop, who was then consecrated by Arian bishops from the neighboring towns, there was no continuity of mission there, since an essential part of the mission or commission was to transmit the Apostolic faith.

There would be nothing to prevent the remaining Catholics in that same region to select thier own candidate and have non-Arian bishops come in and consecrate the man they had selected. That Bishop would then be the legitimate Apostolic successor of the prior Bishop, not the Arian guy.

Or if something similar happened during a papal interregum (even if there wasn't an Arian usurper) pretending to occupy the episcopal see.

This notion that ...

1) Pope appoints bishops and transmits jurisdiction to them.

2) Pope dies.

3) Bishops elect Pope and trasmit jurisdiction back to him.

is part of the misundersanding here.

No such thing happens. These Bishops do not and cannot transmit the jurisdiction back to the Pope. They simply have the material continuity, and then Our Lord infuses the formal continuity back into the papal line.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #63 on:** November 14, 2022, 11:57:48 AM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 12:34:29 PM

Actually it does, because as Msgr. Vigano explains, both "churches" have the same hierarchy:

"the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ [i.e., the Catholic Church] and our Mother."

Here is Msgr. Tissier explaining how that is possible:

"Is it possible to have one hierarchy for two churches?
That the Catholic hierarchy governs at the same time the Catholic Church and a society which has the appearance of a counterfeit church seems to go against the assistance promised by Christ to Peter and his successors, guaranteeing the unerring magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church (Mt. 16, 17-19; 28,20).

If the Pope directs another church, he is an apostate and he is no longer pope and the sedevacantist hypothesis is verified. – We simply need to respond that “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” and that by consequence, no authority can pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance; and that on the other hand in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917 4 ). As for the magisterium, it is only assisted if it has the intention to transmit the deposit of the faith and not profane novelties 5 . And as for the indefectibility of the Church, it does not hinder the fact that it can come to be that the Church, following a great apostasy as that announced by St. Paul (2 Thess, 2,3), is reduced to a modest number of true Catholics. In consequence, none of the difficulties raised against the existence of a society truly called the conciliar church and directed by the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy are decisive.

It is however preferable to avoid these extreme responses. One could thus try to deny the existence of the conciliar church as an organised society and which is directed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, or to extenuate 6 the membership of it’s adherents to this conciliar church."
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

+Tissier is presupposing that the Conciliar "popes" are Catholic popes based on the designation of the College of Cardinals (in 1958 and 1963, by 1978, 2005 and 2013 you can hardly call them the College of Cardinals since they themselves are all manifest heretics and apostates). But cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio states that even if the Cardinals all accept the claim, a manifest heretic cannot be legitimately elected to the papacy. In the case of a manifest heretic, we are not judging the "Prima sedes", rather he is already judged to be incapable of election prior to his claim. Otherwise, +Tissier is correct, that a man is the leader of a non-Catholic sect is prima facie evidence that he is an apostate or at least a manifest heretic and therefore not capable of obtaining the Roman See. There is ample evidence that all the Conciliar claimants were already manifest heretics even before they were falsely designated popes by the Cardinals. As per cuм Ex it doesn't matter if this wasn't recognized by the Cardinals at the time. Once it was recognized, it is clear that they were never capable of obtaining the papacy in the first place.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #64 on:** November 14, 2022, 12:04:52 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 12:58:09 PM

Avrille, on an objection to the article:

"Afterwards, the editorial answered the objection: “It is not possible that the same hierarchy direct two Churches”, because if one is in charge of a Church other than the Catholic Church, one apostatizes. If the Pope is in charge of another Church, he is no longer Pope; one falls into sedevacantism.
https://dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

It is clear that the Conciliar hierarchy does in fact formally abjure from the Catholic faith by their own words. They openly admit that they are "updating" the teaching of the Catholic Church. They labeled all their innovations with the word "new" (e.g. Novus Ordo == New Order; New Mass, New Rite of Consecration, new catechism, New Code of Canon Law, etc). They knew what the Catholic Church taught concerning faith and morals but they rejected it and produced new interpretations supporting their non-Catholic views.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #65 on:** November 14, 2022, 12:30:10 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 04:44:03 PM

No, I claim indefectability (and formal apostolicity) are in danger when you judge the entire hierarchy to have excommunicated themselves.

There has never been any dogma or divinely revealed truth concerning the possibility of all the Roman Catholic sees being vacant at the same time. Some people are claiming that such a situation would be tantamount to the mission of the Church becoming defunct. But pre-V2 theologians speculated about the possibility that a nuclear war could annihilate all the sees with the possible exception of the local Roman See. The reason they made an exception for the Roman See was due to the belief that the complete destruction of the Roman See would call into question the divinely revealed truths concerning the papacy. But no pope has ever addressed that topic in such detail. In any case, if all the sees can be destroyed as the pre-V2 theologians imagined, then there would only be one ordinary in existence, the Pope himself. And when he dies (sede vacante), there would be no ordinaries at all until the Roman clergy elected the next pope. And no one claims that a sede vacante could result in the defection of the Roman See. Therefore, it is possible that at some point in time there could be no ordinaries at all. But if that leaves you unsatisfied, you can at least admit that there is no way to prove that there are no living ordinaries at all. All we can say is that we know of no living ordinaries. So the post V2 situation doesn't require us to believe that manifest heretics are capable of holding ecclesiastical offices. We know from the dogmas of the Church that manifest heretics are not members of the Church and therefore are not at all capable of being the head of the body of the Church.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #66 on:** November 14, 2022, 12:49:03 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 03:03:49 PM

This is a word game: I can just as easily turn your logic around on you, and say that you can't even point to ONE bishop in the conciliar hierarchy with jurisdiction that has placed himself outside the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, you have excommunicated them in toto, and permanently severed formal apostolicity.

That makes a mockery of the Church, and directly attacks its claim to indefectability (and consequently her divine foundation and constitution), granted to her by Our Lord.

Your claims are not proven. You haven't established that indefectability is being challenged. You would have to prove using Sacred Scripture and/or dogmas that all the sees being vacant simultaneously constitutes a defection of the Church. I will be impressed if you can do it because I have had this discussion many times in the past and no one has seriously attempted it. I know of only one pre-V2 theologian who appeared to make such a claim but as far as I know he never attempted a proof. Most theologians never went that far. But the teaching of theologians is not infallible any way. Scripture and dogmas are infallible and no pope ever made such a declaration. It has only become an issue after V2 where different traditionalists are trying to make sense of what happened. If it was somehow proven that all the sees being vacant is a defection, it still wouldn't force us to recognize manifest heretics as holding ecclesiastical offices. It would just force us to admit that we don't know where the ordinaries are.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #67 on:** November 14, 2022, 01:14:36 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 06:20:58 PM

Agreed, and one of the things they told us can't happen is that the entire hierarchy could vanish (because among other mortal wounds to the Church, it would destroy Her apostolicity):

"This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Do you think that auxiliary bishops are excluded from "authoritative union with the Apostolic mission" such that auxiliary bishops are somehow illegitimate? Even the Orthodox bishops have material succession. So saying that auxiliary bishops have material succession isn't saying much. Are auxiliary bishops unlawful? If not, how do you exclude them from the Church's mission? There is a distinction between the ordinaries and auxiliaries for sure. But it is wrong to say that auxiliary bishops are not part of the hierarchy. In fact, Parente's Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology says that all clerics are part of the hierarchy even those who have never received anything but First Tonsure. And we know for sure that the Roman See does not defect when there is no ordinary (sede vacante). So if the Roman See maintains its apostolic mission before, during and after every sede vacante, there is no reason why the same isn't extended to the whole Church regardless of the status of the other sees.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #68 on:** November 14, 2022, 01:20:05 PM »

Quote from: de Lugo on November 11, 2022, 06:58:03 PM

I have attempted to conceal my position, so as to have more objective (rather than partisan) debates, which usually get acrimonious sooner or later.

Regarding the tradditional clergy, even they fail to meet the criteria for apostolicity, which must be both material (apostolic succession) and formal (jurisdiction), per the above quote. They have the former, but not the latter.

It is an interesting question as to whether, in a time of extended extreme spiritual necessity, a persistent supplied jurisdiction would suffice for formal apostolicity. That solution might solve the extinct hierarchy problem for a sedevacantist, but I'm unaware of any pre-conciliar theologians making such an argument.

I believe as long as the succession is lawful, it is formal. There is no need to confuse the Teaching Church (or the Apostolic College) with the hierarchy in general (which includes auxiliaries, priest, deacons and all clerics). A sede vacante doesn't extinguish the Apostolic College, no more than it extinguishes the vacant see. This idea that there has to be at least one living member of the APostolic College at all times, is a post V2 novelty.

NIFH · « **Reply #69 on:** November 14, 2022, 08:31:46 PM »

Father Hesse:

"... They will quote Pope Paul IV... The docuмent is called cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. That's the title of the docuмent. It's a docuмent which enjoys all the infallibility it could have. It's a docuмent that uses all the legal formulas for an infallible docuмent. That means the pope says, "I, in virtue of my apostolic authority herewith declare, define and statute that and that and that and that and that and that, and that has to be held and believed by all people forever." And in that docuмent, which also rules on the election of a future pope--on the conclave, it says that no cardinal, if he is a heretic or was a heretic can be validly elected to the papacy. Many sedevacantists use this docuмent as the definite proof that John XXIII, who in their eyes was a heretic before his election, they use this as the proof that John XXIII, having been a heretic before his election, could not be validly elected. They are quite wrong on that because, again, and this is why I said you have to be careful about the distinction between matters of discipline, matters of Faith. Pope Paul [IV], with his cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, was able to bind all of his successors forever in everything that concerns moral or dogmatic teaching in this docuмent. To rule on the election of a future pope is not a moral decision. It is not a decision on moral theology. It is not a decision of Faith. It's not a matter of morals or Faith. It is the ruling of a canonical election. That means you talk about an act of administration. You talk about an administrative ruling. And that cannot, because it's mere disciplinary, cannot bind his successors, and indeed, the many successors of Paul [IV] who came up with new regulations on the conclave, including Pius X, never mentioned that paragraph again. So it's not taken up anymore. And I think if the question of a former heretic or a material heretic not being able to become pope was something that the popes cannot change, then we're probably in sedesvacancy for several centuries already. See, the present pope is not the first heretic in Church history."

NIFH · « **Reply #70 on:** November 14, 2022, 08:33:21 PM »

Father Hesse:

"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof. Some people quote the apostolic bull of Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus against the present pope, saying that Paul IV decreed that a heretic cannot become pope. Yes, but the papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it. It is an act of administration just like all elections. When in a monastery an abbot is elected, this is a canonical election. The election of the supreme pontiff among the cardinals is a canonical election. And those rules can not only be changed, but were changed a couple of dozen times over in Church history. Leo XIII changed the rules, Pius X changed the rules, Pius XI changed the rules again, Pius XII changed the rules again, Paul VI changed it, and the present pope changed it again. And none of them has ever quoted Paul IV again on this. Now the bull cuм Ex Apostolatus is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned. It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative rule is concerned, saying that if a cardinal was a heretic, even if he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected pope. To be validly elected pope you need positive human law and law of administration, and that every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws, which no pope can change ever. If a pope decides on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it. Impossible. He would put himself in schism with the Church. But a rule of administration, and how it can be changed! And how! In the beginning the people of Rome elected the pope. Later on, it was the clergy of Rome, and very much later on, only 1300 years after Christ died and ressurected and founded His Church at Pentecost, cardinals were the only ones to elect the pope. So if a future pope says, "I don't want cardinals to elect the pope, but all of the bishops in the world," he's gonna make a mess but that doesn't make the election invalid. It would be horrible. I don't want to think of it. But it doesn't make the election, duly procedures required and provided, it doesn't make it invalid because it's an act of administration. And that's why I recommend the sedevacantists to be a little more careful with their judgements. The Society of Saint Pius X is not exactly composed of all idiots, and none of them nowadays consider the Apostolic See vacant. And the three priests, Fathers Sanborn, Kelly and Cekada unfortunately, because they are otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Saint Pius X for insisting on the "fact" that we do not have a pope. To me this is a neurotic statement, too, because you put yourself in a dead end. Who's gonna elect the next pope? I leave the question to you."

NIFH · « **Reply #71 on:** November 14, 2022, 08:34:27 PM »

Father Hesse:

"... Paul IV was also the one who issued the papal bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio that determined that a former heretic could not become pope. What I really should, for practical reasons, not passing any judgement on anyone here, but for practical purposes, I should say the '1958 sedevacantists'--those who believe that John XXIII was not pope because before he was elected he was a heretic. ... The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn't even mention cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And the papal practice was even worse. While Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio says a former heretic cannot become pope, privately he made sure that every cardinal understood that one who was formerly suspect of heresy could not become pope. Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."

Author Topic: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism (Read 3557 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

Clemens Maria

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

NIFH

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

NIFH

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism

NIFH

Re: Msgr. Vigano to Nun Considering Sedevacantism