Author Topic: SSPX is becoming sectarian (schismatic?) (Read 6004 times)

peterp · « **Reply #15 on:** June 02, 2014, 05:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Matthew
Some religious asked a gentleman not to serve Mass any longer at the convent where he had always served the Mass: his crime was to have served the Mass of a ‘resistance’ priest.

The religious had every right to censure the gentlemen for the active participation in a movement that has the aim of undermining the very priestly society to the religious belong.

Bp. Williamson wants to see the destruction of the society, replaced with:
a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s and is now sinking the Society of St. Pius X. (London, November 3, 2012)

The bishop and resistance priests are telling the faithful not to support the society or assist at their masses:

Bp. Williamson:
"Therefore just as the Archbishop ruled out attending Indult Masses, so now, as a general rule, attending SSPX Masses should be ruled out, ...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Eleison-Comments-Horrible-Falls-III

Fr. Ortiz:
... it’s my duty as a priest to alert the faithful of the danger of going to these [SSPX] Masses, like any father warning his children of dissociating with those who represent a danger to their Faith.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/02/letter-from-fr-ortiz-december-31-2013/

Fr. Davi Hewko:
Objectively speaking, you should not go to the Society masses anymore.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/25/should-we-continue-to-attend-neo-sspx-masses-fr-david-hewko-answers/

Fr. Pfeiffer:
It is not correct for those who know the truth to continue to attend Society of St. Pius X mainstream Masses.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/03/priests-and-faithful-ought-not-to-support-the-neo-sspx-fr-joseph-pfeiffer/

Fr. Girouard:
... we have to get out of the Society. ... we have to get out of the official structure of the modern SSPX.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/tag/neo-sspx/

So why was the gentleman at a society mass anyway, is he not following the advice of the resistance bishop and priests?

The answer is simple for some.

We need the Mass and the Sacraments.

And don't say "start a Resistance group and petition Fr. Pfeiffer" either, because that doesn't work. Father is too busy and is spread too thin already.

Unless you live next to a major airport hub or existing Resistance location, you can forget it.

And if your SSPX chapel is unchanged from 10 years ago, it's also difficult to get an active Resistance chapter off the ground. It's kind of like being a victim of your own success!

Even though I immediately started up a Resistance in my area (we even have a dedicated building and equipment!), we've only had 3 visits from a Resistance priest, the last of which was September 2013.

We need Mass more often than that.

The time is not now to totally abandon the SSPX, at least in my area. When the time is right, those with their eyes WIDE OPEN will know it.

If you stay at your SSPX chapel, you have to decide "Should I endure, or should I bail?"

Yes, my question was more to highlight the contradiction. I understand the reasons, and it is the correct course of action. To go months (may be a year) without the sacraments cannot be good for one's spiritual life nor for those one is responsible for. In which case that leads to the questions: Why can't the resistance bishop and priests understand this? Why are they saying leave the society which will invariably harm one's spiritual life? This is serious.

Quote from: Matthew

I'm waiting for the "frog-boiling water" to rise above "cold water fresh from the tap" temperature before I bail. Long story short: there's nothing to ENDURE at my chapel right now. There's no slippery slope, because there's no slope or incline at all right now! Bishop Fellay's hand is just too remote to affect the day-to-day operations at my chapel.

If that changes, then I'll change my prudential response.

I don't think there ever will be. The society will continue as she has always done: walking the thin line between the SVs on one side and the ED communities on the other.

Kelley · « **Reply #16 on:** June 02, 2014, 07:56:15 PM »

Quote from: peterp

The society will continue as she has always done: walking the thin line between the SVs on one side and the ED communities on the other.

Oh the naiveté! They now wish to be one of those ED communities.

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2014, 12:09:02 PM »

Vinny, just go join the FSSP or the Indult and be done with it.

You don't like the classic SSPX position -- you want Modernist Rome's approval, as well as the approval of the pope who said, "There is no Catholic God".

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2014, 12:13:02 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Matthew

But you don't understand. Bishop Fellay and those in power ARE the SSPX.

So when you decided to title this thread "Is the SSPX becoming schismatic?", you were actually meaning to say "Is Bishop Fellay becoming schismatic?"?

If this is the case I think you are not using clear reason, or at least not speaking clearly. That is, you are equating discrediting the institution or pious union of priest that form the SSPX (judging by the name of the title of the thread) with attacking Bishop Fellay.

I don't think it is very upstanding either for the resistance to use Fraternity of St. Peter arguments against the SSPX priests collectively and then attempt to minimize that to Bishop Fellay himself somehow. In fact, the title of the thread is so conspicuous, I would've expected it to be written by Pete Vere himself or one of his cohorts, assuming it is not........

No, this is not about +Fellay personally. I'm only talking about those priests who have decided to change the SSPX fundamentally.

It's much more than one, but less than "all of them".

But any priests that aren't pro-Modernist-Rome are "quiet dissenters" at best, and can't control what the SSPX is becoming.

Yes, +Fellay is fully in control and in charge of the SSPX, in union with a huge number of his close associates and followers. These are the men in power, and they determine what the SSPX will be.

And yes, they are abusing their power as has been seen several times in the past few years. I'm not talking about kicking out one or two vocal critics (parishioners) who won't live in peace, either. (Plenty of people would be able to justify or at least understand that, even if they didn't personally approve of it)

What about the heavy-handed tactics with various religious houses? They are acting like schoolyard bullies. They are acting like cultists.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #19 on:** June 03, 2014, 12:25:21 PM »

Quote from: peterp

This has already been rebutted in another thread. This nonsence only serves to demostrate, once again, that the author(s) of these types of article simply don't have a clue.

It would help if they first understood what jurisdiction is. And then ask themselves the question To which jurisdiction do you submit? If the answer is they reject the ordinary jurisdiction of their bishop and reject the society's supplied jurisdiction - viz. no jurisdiction - the result is to put oneself outside the authority of the Church; you're a schismatic.

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

peterp · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2014, 05:51:21 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.

The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).

Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #21 on:** June 06, 2014, 03:20:57 PM »

Quote from: peterp

supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction

peterp, can you provide the source that says supplied jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction?

peterp · « **Reply #22 on:** June 09, 2014, 07:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino

Quote from: peterp
supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction

peterp, can you provide the source that says supplied jurisdiction is ordinary jurisdiction?

Yes,

"Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner, without any formality, even perchance to people who are unfit and unworthy." (Fr. Miaskiewicz, p.27)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #23 on:** June 09, 2014, 08:05:08 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.

The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).

Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).

Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful. It is required for the validity of certain acts, sacramental or otherwise. The SSPX has no jurisdiction. They are supplied it in certain sacramental instances for some reason or another, common error, positive and probable doubt of law or danger of death. They are not supplied it in order to govern the faithful as an ordinary does. And if there was no common error, doubt of law or danger of death they wouldn't be supplied it at all.

Good grief man, one does not get to "choose" his pastor. One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't-- and the SSPX priests certainly aren't pastors, neither are any traditional priests. Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.

peterp · « **Reply #24 on:** June 09, 2014, 08:43:14 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.

The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).

Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).

Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.

Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...

THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!

You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"Because the people are in a probable common error about a fact the Church supplies all the jurisdiction necessary to validate X’s parochial activity."

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.

I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #25 on:** June 09, 2014, 09:07:35 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.

The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).

Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).

Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.

Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.

Quote from: Mithrandylan
One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...

THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!

You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"Because the people are in a probable common error about a fact the Church supplies all the jurisdiction necessary to validate X’s parochial activity."

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.

I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.

To validate parochial activity. Yes, I know. Jurisdiction is supplied, given certain requisites, to validate otherwise invalid acts, like the absolution of a penitent by a priest who does not have jurisdiction to absolve him. It does not grant a man an office which he does not have, it supplies him the jurisdiction he would have if he had the office, but which he doesn't have because he doesn't hold the office (of pastor, or bishop or whatever else). And at that, the jurisdiction is supplied only for the acts which attract the supply of it, and the supply lasts only so long as it is required to ensure validity for them. Being a pastor is not an act, it is an office.

peterp · « **Reply #26 on:** June 09, 2014, 09:24:39 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan

Peter, one does not submit to supplied jurisdiction. I read all of the quotes you gave, and none of them are going to help you with your fundamental misunderstanding, which appears to be that supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction "had" or "possessed" habitually under an extraordinary instance (do clarify for me if that is what you think, as that's the best way I can think to summarize everything you've said here).

Mithrandylan, supplied jurisdiction IS ordinary jurisdiction; it is just given in an extraordinary manner (as mentioned by Fr. Stehlin). You need to go back to basics and understand what jurisdiction IS. No I don't think the society's jurisdiction is habitual and neither do they; it's at least implicit in the heading Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. ..." of the quote from Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and explicit in the linked conference on SSPX.ORG, and Fr. Miaskiewicz says the same in his disseration.

The problem here is that (i) you do not understand what is jurisdiction and (ii) want to narrow the extent of the supplied principle.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The SSPX does not "have" supplied jurisdiction. Each priest and bishop within the society has no jurisdiction at all (either taken individually or collectively) until and unless* they are about to put forth an act which requires it for validity, in which case if and only if certain conditions are met, that jurisdiction (which they don't have) will be supplied to them for the validity of the act and only for the validity of the act, i.e., the supply of jurisdiction ceases immediately upon the completion of the act. So, hopefully you see that "submitting" to the "supplied jurisdiction of the SSPX" is really a nonsensical statement.

*And even then, it's not even really right to say that the jurisdiction is "had," since this word implies possession.

Mithrandylan, if you refuse to submit to jurisdiction you are outside the Church; you are rejecting her authority. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais warns of this mentality in the quote I gave. In the case of the religion communities they ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the Head of their Order, but they don't, they submit to the society's Bishop responsible for Religious. Similarly, the laiety ought to submit to the jurisdiction of their parish priest and diocean bishop (who, incidently, would concur with Bp. Williamson and the resistance priests and tell you not to attend the SSPX).

Now, the supplied principle has a very broader field of operation and application. If you refuse your local pastor and have a society priest as your 'parish priest' the Church will supply all the jurisdiction necessary to validate the society priest's parochial activity. Hence if you are treating a society church as your parish church then the society priest would have an authority over you just as a parish priest would - read the quote from Fr. Miaskiewicz. The same with the religious communities. They can withdraw anytime, but they would still have to submit to some jurisdiction - either the head of their order or 'find' another supplied jurisdiction (e.g. The Carmel of St. Joseph and Bp Williamson).

Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful.

Which means the faithful (and clergy) are subject to jurisdiction... which means what exactly? - this is what you cannot grasp.

Quote from: Mithrandylan
One either has a pastor or doesn't. Most of us don't ...

THEN YOU HAVE LOST YOUR LINK TO THE HIERARCHY!

You just don't get it. Read Fr. Miaskiewicz:
"Because the people are in a probable common error about a fact the Church supplies all the jurisdiction necessary to validate X’s parochial activity."

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Instead of reading Miaskiewicz's quote(s) I suggest you read his book. Your idea of "finding a jurisdiction to submit to" is just plain goofy, Peter.

I've read his dissertation, I suggest you do the same. BTW, I put find in quotes it should have been obvious what I meant. Stop being silly Mithrandylan.

To validate parochial activity. Yes, I know.

No you don't know. I've written numerous times and you've failed to address it everytime: what it means to be subject to jurisdiction; the liaety are subject to the jurisdiction of their pastor, the pastor is subject to the jurisdiction of his bishop etc. - this is what you cannot comprehend, you think only in terms of a priest and the confessional.

You really do need to address your attachment to the hierarchy before we continue.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #27 on:** June 09, 2014, 09:34:55 PM »

Peter, none of the traditional priests are pastors. I know a lot of them think they are, and play fast and loose with that term, but it's simply not true.

Miaskiewicz does not support this view-- no one does. A pastor must be approved by the local ordinary, and must be appointed by the local ordinary to the office of pastor. A priest in charge of a chapel which enjoys no approbation of the Church is not a pastor, and the building he says mass in is not a parish. His actions that require jurisdiction are invalid until and unless there is some condition present which attracts a supply of jurisdiction.

You are confusing the supply of jurisdiction for certain and specific acts under certain and specific conditions with being supplied an actual office with authority, it seems. This is truly bizarre!