Author Topic: Vatican Council says there will be shepherds "usque ad consummationem saeculi"  (Read 5185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
Arnaldo,

And are you one who of those who believe apostolic shepherds have to be "ordinaries" in some see?

Read the attached. Father Cekada kept asking John Lane to quote competent authority which supports the specific proposition that "there must exist one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect." Even using the fallible theologians and manuals, Lane couldn't support that proposition - in my view.

Anyway, there's also some good discussions here on this issue. I'll try to dig them up. But, again, the proposition regarding ordinaries and apostolicity needs to be proven. We often take things as a given . . . when they haven't exactly been "given."

DR
I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
Arnaldo,

There's a good discussion of the issue you raised in the thread from which I lift the following from a post of mine in that thread. In my post, I quote from an old SSPX article cited in a post from Sean Johnson, which presents this strong argument IMHO:



Quote
History confirms that the state of necessity extended not only the duties of bishops, but also their power of jurisdiction. Dom Grea whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required" even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid., p.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" (ibid. and ƒƒ.), for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is also at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in episcopal power "comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid., p.218):


https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/61-year-sede-vacantism-has-already-become-proximately-heretical-(leads-to-evism)/msg680956/#msg680956

I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
Arnaldo,

And are you one who of those who believe apostolic shepherds have to be "ordinaries" in some see?

Read the attached. Father Cekada kept asking John Lane to quote competent authority which supports the specific proposition that "there must exist one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect." Even using the fallible theologians and manuals, Lane couldn't support that proposition - in my view.

Anyway, there's also some good discussions here on this issue. I'll try to dig them up. But, again, the proposition regarding ordinaries and apostolicity needs to be proven. We often take things as a given . . . when they haven't exactly been "given."

DR

I am indeed one of those who knows that shepherds and teachers require ordinary jurisdiction.  I also know that delegated jurisdiction cannot exist without ordinary jurisdiction, since the former is a delegated participation in the latter. And why would I care what the heretic Fr. Cekada says?  He's not even a Catholic.

Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
Arnaldo,

There's a good discussion of the issue you raised in the thread from which I lift the following from a post of mine in that thread. In my post, I quote from an old SSPX article cited in a post from Sean Johnson, which presents this strong argument IMHO:

History confirms that the state of necessity extended not only the duties of bishops, but also their power of jurisdiction. Dom Grea whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required" even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid., p.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" (ibid. and ƒƒ.), for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is also at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in episcopal power "comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid., p.218):

What the quote means is the limitation of territorial boundaries did not apply in the extraordinary circumstances. A bishops appointed to a particular area could exercise his ordinary jurisdiction outside of that area.  It doesn't mean heretical and schismatic "bishops" or priests who were ordained against the laws of the Church receive jurisdiction.     

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
What the quote means is the limitation of territorial boundaries did not apply in the extraordinary circumstances. A bishops appointed to a particular area could exercise his ordinary jurisdiction outside of that area.  It doesn't mean heretical and schismatic "bishops" or priests who were ordained against the laws of the Church receive jurisdiction.    
I'm not aware of the apostles being "appointed to a particular area." If you think they were, can you support that?

If that is what it means - bishops appointed to a particular area exercising jurisdiction outside the area in extraordinary circumstances - the analogy to the apostles (who were not appointed to a "particular area") is simply wrong here. Why don't you say that then, rather than apparently taking the quote as truthful and "explaining" so as to render its analogy inapplicable?

I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
I am indeed one of those who knows that shepherds and teachers require ordinary jurisdiction.  I also know that delegated jurisdiction cannot exist without ordinary jurisdiction, since the former is a delegated participation in the latter. And why would I care what the heretic Fr. Cekada says?  He's not even a Catholic.
Ok. So you know it all and are here to instruct us - rather than join in the search for the truth in these anomalous times that are rife with contradictions that make the status quo theology (if applied as you apparently apply it) pre-V2 appear ridiculous?

Got it.
I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
I'm not aware of the apostles being "appointed to a particular area." If you think they were, can you support that?

The apostles all had universal jurisdiction and they were all infallible. Their successors were appointed to particular areas, and only the successor of Peter in the See of Rome enjoys infallibility.  It may also be true that in the first few centuries ecclesiastic law had not yet developed to the point in which the successors of the Apostles were restricted within territorial boundaries, but instead could legitimately exercise their office anywhere there were faithful without a resident bishop.  That would not mean they possessed universal jurisdiction, since universal jurisdiction is of a different species than particular jurisdiction, but it would mean that they could legitimately exercise their particular jurisdiction outside of the their territorial boundaries.

Quote
If that is what it means - bishops appointed to a particular area exercising jurisdiction outside the area in extraordinary circumstances - the analogy to the apostles (who were not appointed to a "particular area") is simply wrong here. Why don't you say that then, rather than apparently taking the quote as truthful and "explaining" so as to render its analogy inapplicable?

I'm not sure what analogy you are referring to, but I guarantee that if you look up De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I , p. 218, it will be referring to bishops who had been legitimately sent by the Church, and not to bishops who were illicitly consecrated and who had not been canonically sent.  


Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
Ok. So you know it all and are here to instruct us - rather than join in the search for the truth in these anomalous times that are rife with contradictions that make the status quo theology (if applied as you apparently apply it) pre-V2 appear ridiculous?

Got it.

This is Catholicism 101. If there's no ordinary jurisdiction there's no delegated jurisdiction.  A shepherd and teacher is a successor of the apostles, and a successor of the apostles is a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction; a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction is one who has been legitimately appointed to an episcopal see that was either established by the Apostles themselves, or by a Pope.  


Offline Struthio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1415
  • Reputation: +375/-274
  • Gender: Male
John of Damascus says that Antichrist comes at the consummation of the age. Hence, the Vatican Council does not guarantee shepherds up to the Second Coming of Christ.

Quote from: John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)
It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist. 1 John 2:22 But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm
Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
John of Damascus says that Antichrist comes at the consummation of the age. Hence, the Vatican Council does not guarantee shepherds up to the Second Coming of Christ.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Struthio, just because John Damascus uses the phrase in a general sense to refer to the time of Antichrist, does not mean the Vatican Council used it in the same general sense.  

The Church can never be without shepherds and teachers.  The Church is essentially an unequal society comprised of those with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, and those who submit to their authority.  If the Church no longer had shepherds and teachers who enjoy the three-fold authority, she would undergo an essential change, and therefore cease to be the Church founded by Christ.  IF that were to happen, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.  Listen to Popes Pius X and Pius IX:

Pius X, Vehementer Nos. 8, Feb. 11, 1906: “The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors (I Ephes. iv. II sqq.) - a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging (Matt. xxviii. 18-20; xvi. 18, 19; xviii. 17; Tit. ii. 15; 11. Cor. x. 6; xiii. 10. & c.) It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body alone rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end. … the plan of the episcopate and the constitution of the Church have always been found to be so framed that the Church rests on the Bishops, and that all its acts are ruled by them.”

Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: “Christ founded His Church as a perfect society, of its nature external and perceptible to the senses, which in the future should carry on the work of the salvation of mankind under one head, with a living teaching authority …  The Church thus wondrously instituted could not cease to exist with the death of its Founder and of the Apostles, the pioneers of its propagation; for its mission was to lead all men to salvation, without distinction of time or place: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations.” (Matt. 28:19).  In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present with it, according to His promise: ‘Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.’ (Matt. 28:20). Hence not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. Otherwise we must say—which God forbid—that Christ has failed in His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted of His Church that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18). … The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

When the Vatican Council says the Church will possess shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age, it means until the very end.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
The apostles all had universal jurisdiction and they were all infallible. Their successors were appointed to particular areas, and only the successor of Peter in the See of Rome enjoys infallibility.  It may also be true that in the first few centuries ecclesiastic law had not yet developed to the point in which the successors of the Apostles were restricted within territorial boundaries, but instead could legitimately exercise their office anywhere there were faithful without a resident bishop.  That would not mean they possessed universal jurisdiction, since universal jurisdiction is of a different species than particular jurisdiction, but it would mean that they could legitimately exercise their particular jurisdiction outside of the their territorial boundaries.

I'm not sure what analogy you are referring to, but I guarantee that if you look up De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I , p. 218, it will be referring to bishops who had been legitimately sent by the Church, and not to bishops who were illicitly consecrated and who had not been canonically sent.  

The apostles all had universal jurisdiction and they were all infallible. Their successors were appointed to particular areas, and only the successor of Peter in the See of Rome enjoys infallibility.  It may also be true that in the first few centuries ecclesiastic law had not yet developed to the point in which the successors of the Apostles were restricted within territorial boundaries, but instead could legitimately exercise their office anywhere there were faithful without a resident bishop.  That would not mean they possessed universal jurisdiction, since universal jurisdiction is of a different species than particular jurisdiction, but it would mean that they could legitimately exercise their particular jurisdiction outside of the their territorial boundaries.

I'm not sure what analogy you are referring to, but I guarantee that if you look up De l’Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I , p. 218, it will be referring to bishops who had been legitimately sent by the Church, and not to bishops who were illicitly consecrated and who had not been canonically sent.  

Remember, the article is an attempt to justify Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of bishops without papal mandate. It was analogizing that action to the situation at the beginning of the Church, saying, "not only at the beginning of Christianity did the 'necessity of the Church and the Gospel' demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations," but also in the case of the Archbishop and his consecrations of bishops. This is the analogy.

Once again, your argument here is nothing more than ipse dixit, like your subsequent post about "this is Catholicism 101." As I said, you're assuming things as "given" when you haven't established - beyond your own words - that they are "given."

We all assert that the Church is the church with the apostolic succession, and we all here assert that that is the Catholic Church. This thread mainly concerns whether that succession means bishops until the end of time, the final judgment. I think Struthio makes a strong case of "no" which is consistent with the post-V2 world, the facts, and the law, the revelation of God through Scripture, the teachings of the Fathers, and the Magisterium - in the actual words at issue, without assumptions taken. You evidently demur from that and say "yes" to his "no," but that is not the point at issue here.

The point you and I are discussing is that you require, for the Church to remain as she must until the end of time (again according to your demurring to Struthio's issue in this thread), the following: you maintain this requires, a) in the first place, bishops, and b) particular kinds of bishops, bishops who are "ordinaries" with direct mandate from a pope to govern a particular jurisdiction.  For purpose of our discussion now I accept point a) - which would take us off onto a byway if disputed.

The precise issue is what does "apostolic" mean. Getting back to the analogy, the apostles had universal jurisdiction and were not limited to particular geographic sees. It would seem to me obvious that if there were bishops now who also had universal jurisdiction and were not limited geographically, the church with such would be "apostolic," since it would have bishops exercising jurisdiction like the apostles.

Anyway, the point of the Agnis discussion between the "heretic" Father Cekada and John Lane (also a "heretic"?) is precisely what does "apostolic" mean, with at least Mr. Lane making an effort to prove or support his "given," unlike you here.

It seems to me that the "theory" that it requires "ordinaries" directly appointed by the pope is limited in its support to certain inferences from 20th century theologians, at least as set forth by John Lane in the discussion I attached to a prior post. As the "heretic" Father Cekada points out, none of them directly say what John Lane needs them to say. You would think they would if the apostolicity on the Church depended on such, if it's a "dogma" of the faith central to its claim of indefectibility. Rather odd that you don't see that clearly expressed, not even in the theologians, much less anything in the Magisterium.

I think Struthio has demolished the argument that that's what V1 says by discussing what it says and the use of the terminology.

Now, you've added nothing to the argument of Mr. Lane, but simply rung the bell of your "Catholicism 101." Well, I didn't go to your school. Perhaps you can cite the "rule" for me from some authority if it's set down anywhere - and we can continue the discussion.

PS - You posted something while I was typing this. I don't see it relevant to our issue of whether apostolicity requires ordinaries with particular, limited jurisdiction appointed directly by a pope.  


I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


Offline Struthio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1415
  • Reputation: +375/-274
  • Gender: Male
Struthio, just because John Damascus uses the phrase in a general sense to refer to the time of Antichrist, does not mean the Vatican Council used it in the same general sense.  

The Church can never be without shepherds and teachers.  The Church is essentially an unequal society comprised of those with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify, and those who submit to their authority.  If the Church no longer had shepherds and teachers who enjoy the three-fold authority, she would undergo an essential change, and therefore cease to be the Church founded by Christ.  IF that were to happen, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.  Listen to Popes Pius X and Pius IX:

Pius X, Vehementer Nos. 8, Feb. 11, 1906: “The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors (I Ephes. iv. II sqq.) - a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging (Matt. xxviii. 18-20; xvi. 18, 19; xviii. 17; Tit. ii. 15; 11. Cor. x. 6; xiii. 10. & c.) It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body alone rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end. … the plan of the episcopate and the constitution of the Church have always been found to be so framed that the Church rests on the Bishops, and that all its acts are ruled by them.”

Please note, that Pius X refers to the final verses of Matthew, just like the Vatican Council: usque ad consummationem saeculi.


Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: “Christ founded His Church as a perfect society, of its nature external and perceptible to the senses, which in the future should carry on the work of the salvation of mankind under one head, with a living teaching authority …  The Church thus wondrously instituted could not cease to exist with the death of its Founder and of the Apostles, the pioneers of its propagation; for its mission was to lead all men to salvation, without distinction of time or place: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations.” (Matt. 28:19).  In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present with it, according to His promise: ‘Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.’ (Matt. 28:20). Hence not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. Otherwise we must say—which God forbid—that Christ has failed in His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted of His Church that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18). … The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

When the Vatican Council says the Church will possess shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age, it means until the very end.

Well, you already have found that always cannot mean forever here, since the mission of the militant Church will have and end. Pius IX specifies the end by quoting the final words of Matthew even to the consummation of the world. If the Church wouldn't ininterruptedly carry out her mission usque ad consummationem saeculi, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against her.

Pius IX does not say the very end. These words jumped out of your upper storey. Pius IX said usque ad consummationem saeculi, quoting Mt 28:20 and the Vatican Council.


I know that it's hard to unlearn errors. But you have to do that. These two quotes of yours in no way define what you claim they do. Neither does Pius X nor Pius IX say: "usque ad consummation saeculi" means "to the literal last day".
Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

Offline Arnaldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: +7/-25
  • Gender: Male
Remember, the article is an attempt to justify Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of bishops without papal mandate.

I just wrote a long reply to each of your points, and lost it all when I tried to post it.  

Offline Struthio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1415
  • Reputation: +375/-274
  • Gender: Male
This thread mainly concerns whether that succession means bishops until the end of time, the final judgment. I think Struthio makes a strong case of "no" which is consistent with the post-V2 world, the facts, and the law, the revelation of God through Scripture, the teachings of the Fathers, and the Magisterium - in the actual words at issue, without assumptions taken.
[...]
I think Struthio has demolished the argument that that's what V1 says by discussing what it says and the use of the terminology.

Thank you, DecemRationis, very much, for letting me know that my efforts were not in vain.
Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Reputation: +137/-46
  • Gender: Male
I just wrote a long reply to each of your points, and lost it all when I tried to post it.  
I'm very sorry. That has probably happened to most of us, and it stinks. 
I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard


 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16