Working on refuting Salza?
No, just figuring out things for myself.
A friend of mine is making the argument that the SSPX is wrong to cite this example as demonstrating Lefebvre had jurisdiction to perform the 1988 consecrations, because it only shows that St. Eusebius would have had tacit approval from the Pope.
This way of speaking about "jurisdictions for consecrations" confuses me, because so far as I know, the SSPX never alleged any "jurisdiction" to perform the consecrations.
Instead, they adduced a state of necessity which created a duty in charity and justice, to come to the aid of the faithful.
Moreover, "jurisdiction to perform consecrations" seems like a mixing or conflating of concepts to me (i.e., I understand jurisdiction in the context of sacramental validity, but not with regard to performing consecrations; nobody but the pope could be said to possess "jurisdiction" for consecrations).
Another wrinkle is that the reservation of episcopal consecrations was not reserved to the Holy See until the 11th century (and then, only for the Latin Church). Well, obviously St. Eusebius was operating well before then, so recourse to the Pope would not have been necessary one way or the other (i.e, no tacit approval was needed, because the duty to seek approval did not yet exist).
Nevertheless, whatever one might say about all the foregoing, the example of Cardinal Slipyj consecrating bishops in the Ukraine under Paul VI in direct contravention to his policy prohibiting them in Ostpolitik (with the consecrated bishops being recognized later as valid and licit, and Cardinal Slipyj not incurring the automatic suspension for unauthorized episcopal consecrations envisaged in the 1917 CIC) clearly shows that necessity confers the duty to consecrate, and that the permission of peter is presumed because it is owed, and in such circuмstances he has not the power to withhold it.
"Palazzini recalls that:
Quote
...today jurisdiction [over a diocese] is conferred [upon bishops] directly and expressly by the Pope…Formerly, however, it used to derive more indirectly from the Vicar of Christ as if from itself it flowed from the Pope onto those bishops, who were in union and peace with the Roman Church, mother and head of all churches [emphasis added].
40
Jurisdiction "as if from itself" seems to have flowed from the Pope in the history of the Church whenever a grave necessity of the Church and of souls demanded it. In such extraordinary circuмstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head "certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the positive judgment of Peter is owed."
https://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
Topic: Short Latin translation request (Read 876 times)