Author Topic: papal bull of excommunication??? (Read 4756 times)

poche · « **Reply #15 on:** October 02, 2013, 12:50:48 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?

No, for example when in 1718 a bishop of Utrecht was ordained without a papal mandate both the consecrating bishop and the bishop being consecrated were excommunicated.

Pretty sure you're talking about a suspect heretic, but not a bishop in good standing with the Church like Archbishop Lefevbre was. If you're talking about the "Old catholic" stuff, then clearly, there were OTHER problems, not just the fact that a bishop was made without "a papal mandate."

They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2013, 01:48:06 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?

No, for example when in 1718 a bishop of Utrecht was ordained without a papal mandate both the consecrating bishop and the bishop being consecrated were excommunicated.

Pretty sure you're talking about a suspect heretic, but not a bishop in good standing with the Church like Archbishop Lefevbre was. If you're talking about the "Old catholic" stuff, then clearly, there were OTHER problems, not just the fact that a bishop was made without "a papal mandate."

They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.

Again, you fail to see that there were other problems with the "old catholic" church. There were. Go look it up. They denied certain tenants of the Faith.

Can you even name one thing that Archbishop Lefevbre denied that was a dogmatic part of the Faith? No, you can't. Because he didn't deny anything.

Having read about the history of the "old catholics," there were a multitude of problems, and the fact that they rejected papal authority entirely. They were considered "schismatic" at that time, but not in heresy. Denying the authority of the Pope was something that Archbishop Lefevbre NEVER ONCE DID.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, poche.

poche · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2013, 02:43:51 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: poche
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
So, prior to the new canon law, its legal?

No, for example when in 1718 a bishop of Utrecht was ordained without a papal mandate both the consecrating bishop and the bishop being consecrated were excommunicated.

Pretty sure you're talking about a suspect heretic, but not a bishop in good standing with the Church like Archbishop Lefevbre was. If you're talking about the "Old catholic" stuff, then clearly, there were OTHER problems, not just the fact that a bishop was made without "a papal mandate."

They ceased to be in good standing with the Catholci Church when they had the episcopal ordination without the papal mandate.

Again, you fail to see that there were other problems with the "old catholic" church. There were. Go look it up. They denied certain tenants of the Faith.

Can you even name one thing that Archbishop Lefevbre denied that was a dogmatic part of the Faith? No, you can't. Because he didn't deny anything.

Having read about the history of the "old catholics," there were a multitude of problems, and the fact that they rejected papal authority entirely. They were considered "schismatic" at that time, but not in heresy. Denying the authority of the Pope was something that Archbishop Lefevbre NEVER ONCE DID.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, poche.

In their lierature they describe themselves as another type of Catholciism. There have been other illicit episcopal ordinations and in each instance prior to the code of 1983. And in each instance the Vatican responded with an excommunication for all the participants. The original question was how the Church regarded the episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. That was the reason for their excommunication.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2013, 07:13:00 AM »

Quote from: poche

...There have been other illicit episcopal ordinations and in each instance prior to the code of 1983. And in each instance the Vatican responded with an excommunication for all the participants. The original question was how the Church regarded the episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. That was the reason for their excommunication.

Specific examples, please. You can spare us the Chinese Patriotic Church, since that is anti-Catholic in it's essence and would always warrant excommunication of such regardless.

Histrionics · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:28:21 AM »

So apparently if one is not an explicit dogma denier episcopal consecration sans papal mandate is no biggie? Additionally, why is doing so under extenuating circuмstances (ie pope in exile, in secret under communist rule) used as justification for the present situation, ie when a sitting pope (believed to be so by the consecrator at any rate) freely commands an explicit "NO" to such wishes, as though the two were even remotely comparable?