No, "archbishop" should disappear completely. That is a title conferred by the Pope.
No, Metropolitan Archbishop is an office and title bestowed by or explicitly
or merely recognised by the Pope. And a Titular Archbishop in no way claims to be a Metropolitan Archbishop. It is stunning how little Catholics understand the office and sacramental nature of the episcopate. Ordinary Bishops are seen as merely the managing Vice President of the local branch of Vatican Inc. Rather, every bishop is a vicar of Christ (but only the Papal Office is also the Vicar of Peter) who is in a matrimonial covenant with a local Church. For an Ordinary Bishop, this is the visible see, material and spiritual, over which he governs, sanctifies, and teaches as Chief Shepherd. For all other bishops (coadjutor bishops aside because of their unique case), they must be in a matrimonial covenant with some see in order to be a true bishop, that is, a high priest who governs, sanctifies, and teaches. For this they have titular sees, ancient dioceses
in partibus infidelium or dioceses that have been suppressed, abandoned, or merged in more resent times. It is theologically unsound for bishops to be consecrated without title (real or merely titular) and I am looking straight at most trad bishops when I am writing this. Yes, consecration without title is valid just as consecration with one or no co-consecrators is valid. However, no title creates a very strange bishop who lacks that matrimonial covenant to a local Church.
A similar and analogous situation exists for priests. No priest can be licitly ordained without some title, either a real benefice or participation in the commonweal of a religious community (order, congregation of apostolic life, etc.). However, do you question the propriety of SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, RCI, etc. clergy who are in fact and truth ordained without title since none hold benefice title and none of these communities have valid erection as religious communities with the power to incardinate their own clergy.
Again, do you recognise a crisis or not? Who is this person reigning as Pope? As far as I can discern, the Chair of Peter is vacant with an heretic usurper with doubtful Orders claiming the Petrine Office. You see, in the current crisis, either one must be consistent in the recognition of that crisis situation and accept the full application of
epikeya; or one is merely being selective and, in effect, LARPing the Church milieu of the 1940s and 50s.
Few things piss me off more than trad clergy, be they bishops or priests, strutting around as if they are licit clergy with full, ordinary jurisdiction so as to teach and command as if they held titles. How laughable it is to hear SSPX priests and laity speak of "grace of office" in reference to their mission pastors [sic] and to the Superior General [sic] and District Superiors [sic].
Which is it for you, Marcellinus? Crisis or normal times? Are we obliged to the full observation of each and all canons? Or, are we able to place
salus animarum above the law and at the heart of all trad ministerial action whilst recongisin the irregularity of the situation out of respect for the law were time normal?
Topic: ORDINATION VALIDATION (Read 301064 times)