Author Topic: papal bull of excommunication??? (Read 3763 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?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:42:48 AM »

Quote from: Histrionics

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?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

Histrionics · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:55:52 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Histrionics
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?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2013, 01:02:32 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Histrionics
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?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

Comparing apples to oranges like poche did, I used as a simply an example, showing that people who were historically excommunicated for "not having a papal mandate," had other more grave issues, but NOT the Archbishop. The Archbishop had very good reason to do what he did without a papal mandate.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2013, 01:30:51 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.

Histrionics · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:45:12 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Comparing apples to oranges like poche did, I used as a simply an example, showing that people who were historically excommunicated for "not having a papal mandate," had other more grave issues, but NOT the Archbishop. The Archbishop had very good reason to do what he did without a papal mandate.

Well I'm glad you agree that the comparisons are apples to oranges...

Histrionics · « **Reply #25 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:49:39 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: Histrionics

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.

I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:53:20 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Histrionics
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?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/On-the-Doctrine-of-Necessity

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #27 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:24:14 PM »

Quote from: Histrionics

Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: Histrionics

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.

I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."

Same concrete situation, same principles, different year. Abp. L's successors need successors in turn. The "particular situation" has not changed, but if anything, ++L's decision has been ever more validated by roman antics since. Yet you accuse me of diversion?

poche · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:54:39 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Histrionics
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?

Why do you think John Paul II and his advisors were against Archbishop LeFebrvre consecrating a bishop?

There are 5,000 bishops in the world, so one going about in a pre-Vatican II fashion shouldn't be such a threat to the conciliar applecart.

So, there are 5,000 bishops.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

We'll put aside all the rampant abuses of the novus ordo and the changes to the canon law that now allow non-Catholics to receive communion. And we'll put aside Assisi where John Paul II prayed alongside and with heretics and others.

This question goes to Poche also.

Why did the novus ordo refuse to allow Archbishop LeFebrvre permission to consecrate a Bishop?

I do not know. That would have been between Archbishop Lefebvre and then Pope John Paul II.

Histrionics · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:56:11 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: Histrionics
Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: Histrionics

Yes, I understand all of this, and I'm leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment; my issue is with those justifying the consecrating of a bishop without Rome's mandate (using irrelevant historical examples that certainly didn't include the Roman Pontiff's explicitly forbidding the act) isn't problematic in principle (just as long as one is not a heretic), which many have done in this thread.

In the current situation you absolutely cannot take issue with justification of new consecrations, while at the same time "leaving the moral uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre's particular situation aside for the moment". To attempt this is disingenuous to say the least.

I prefaced it that way simply to discuss the principles in general apart from Msgr. Lefebvre's concrete situation. To spin it by calling into question my intentions (by ascribing the most uncharitable interpretation at that Mr. (aptly named) Ultrarigorist) is merely a diversion "to say the least."

Same concrete situation, same principles, different year. Abp. L's successors need successors in turn. The "particular situation" has not changed, but if anything, ++L's decision has been ever more validated by roman antics since. Yet you accuse me of diversion?

So would you assert that Abp. Thuc should have remained in "good standing" in 1976? This is also addressed to the claim that the 1917 Code (as opposed to JPII's '83 version) has no real qualm with consecrating bishops unlawfully. Diversion is significantly more benign than disingenuity.