Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

New rite bishops' ordinations: Inherently invalid?

YES
13 (44.8%)
NO
16 (55.2%)

Total Members Voted: 23

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?  (Read 8027 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MaterDominici

  • Mod
  • Supporter
Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2018, 04:49:54 PM »
Welcome back, OHCA  :cowboy:
Logged

Offline OHCA

Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2018, 04:55:24 PM »
Quote from: JezusDeKoning on July 27, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
No valid bishops mean that there is no valid pope, nor has there been one since 1958 when Pope Pius XII went to his Eternal Reward - the sixtieth anniversary of which is coming in 2 and a half months. October 9th, 1958.

The prospect of a six-decade-long interregnum is terrifying because it means that we have gone six decades without ordinary jurisdiction in the Latin Church. No Pope, no bishops, no priests.

I'm personally unsure because of the length of time. In 2018, likely, no. But in 1978 or 1988 when a lot of these bishops, who after the Council turned out to be heretics, still exercised public ministry? And the post-Vatican II establishment is still somewhat new?

Entirely plausible.
.
Invalid episcopal consecrations, taken alone, would only impact the status Ratzinger & Bergoglio vis a vis the papacy.  Not all the way back to 1958, right?
I don’t understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying new rite concecrations were more likely invalid in the seventies and eighties than now?
Logged

Offline X

Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2018, 04:55:35 PM »
Check out this interesting passage on the subject:

"The pope was originally chosen by those senior clergymen resident in and near Rome. In 1059 the electorate was restricted to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and the individual votes of all Cardinal Electors were made equal in 1179. The electors are now limited to those who have not reached 80 on the day before the death or resignation of a pope.[89] The pope does not need to be a Cardinal Elector or indeed a Cardinal; however, since the pope is the Bishop of Rome, only those who can be ordained a bishop can be elected, which means that any male baptized Catholic is eligible. The last to be elected when not yet a bishop was Pope Gregory XVI in 1831, and the last to be elected when not even a priest was Pope Leo X in 1513, and the last to be elected when not a cardinal was Pope Urban VI in 1378.[90] If someone who is not a bishop is elected, he must be given episcopal ordination before the election is announced to the people.[91]
The Second Council of Lyon was convened on 7 May 1274, to regulate the election of the pope. This Council decreed that the cardinal electors must meet within ten days of the pope's death, and that they must remain in seclusion until a pope has been elected; this was prompted by the three-year sede vacante following the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268. By the mid-16th century, the electoral process had evolved into its present form, allowing for variation in the time between the death of the pope and the meeting of the cardinal electors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

PS: Footnote 91 is from JPII
PPS: It seems the Church considered even a 3 year sede vacante intolerable, and addressed the matter in Council.  What would they think about 60 years?
PPPS: How was jurisdiction in the Church exercised during that 3 year interregnum?
Logged

Offline JezusDeKoning

Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2018, 06:35:16 PM »
Quote from: OHCA on July 27, 2018, 04:55:24 PM
.
Invalid episcopal consecrations, taken alone, would only impact the status Ratzinger & Bergoglio vis a vis the papacy.  Not all the way back to 1958, right?
I don’t understand your last paragraph.  Are you saying new rite concecrations were more likely invalid in the seventies and eighties than now?
Because it was closer to the time of the Council when a lot of them still publicly exercised their ministry - only one or two decades after when the post-Council heresy was at its worst. And many of them were either complete pederasts, heretics or both.

There would still be enough time for someone to think that maybe this would be resolved because they were still alive and we'd return to a semblance of normalcy.

But today, I would have a lot of doubts because it's been 50 years, most of them are retired and/or dead and the New Rite has not been abandoned. 
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: NO bishops' ordinations: Invalid?
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2018, 06:51:52 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 27, 2018, 02:31:17 PM
Bishop [de Galarreta] has written about these ordinations/consecrations and he says they are way more problematic.  His reasons are much more detailed than +W.
.
So then why did he stop doing conditional re-ordinations?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
« previous next »