It is currently Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:05 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Necessity of Apostolic Mandate 
Author Message

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
How necessary is an apostolic mandate. Were all 'bishops' approved by Peter? For that matter was Paul approved by Peter? And were those that Paul elected to run the different churches approved by Peter?

If not the whole question of Abp Lefebvre ordaining Bishops is absolutely mute and Fellay should not bother to ask for recognition of the 4 bishops ordained by Lefebvre.

I was reading some of the reports in the Remnant about what transpired during those tumultuous times and thought that it was rather suspicious as to why Ratzinger wanted to delay the ordaining of the 4 Bishops. Almost like he wanted some invalid ordinal to be in place so that the 4 could be invalidly ordained as all those since have been.


Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:06 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
csibf wrote:
How necessary is an apostolic mandate. Were all 'bishops' approved by Peter? For that matter was Paul approved by Peter? And were those that Paul elected to run the different churches approved by Peter?


I have often wondered about this as well. It would seem to me that an answer based upon a principle must apply everywhere at all times. As there been a papal mandate for every bishop ever consecrated, especially in places and times of persecution? I've been told that in such cases there is an "implicit" mandate but I can't fully accept that notion--perhaps no one has really provided the evidence that would convince me. Admitedly, my approval or disapproval means nothing.

This is why I simply can't understand the problems various traditional groups have with the "independent" bishops, Thuc-line bishops, SSPX, SSPV, etc.


Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:03 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Considerable light is shed on Csibf's questions in Mgr Fenton's article on "Saint Peter and Apostolic Jurisdiction.

Further light is shed by the following quotations :

“For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined.
Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as
We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

“…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

“ …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)

“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)

And more light again is shed on the importance of this issue by the quotation posted by Mike here. - a post which surprisingly has not so far provoked any discussion.

Anyone who does not see any difficulty here, from than angle of traditional Catholic/sedevacantist episcopal consecrations in our day is missing something. Nor is there any easy way around the difficulty, as far as I can see, by saying that the popes and theologians were envisaging "normal times" and hence that we cannot extrapolate from their statements a universal principle applicable even in very extraordinary times. The truth is that the popes were in fact appealing to a universal principle in order to resolve, by its application, the concrete cases confronting them.

This difficulty, which has received relatively little attention, strikes me as worthy of much closer attention. The fact that it is often invoked by home-aloners who absurdly refuse even to receive the sacrements from priests legitimately ordained and named to ecclesiastical offices before the death of Pope Pius XII, has perhaps been responsible for causing more serious and informed Catholics to dismiss the whole subject.


Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:39 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)


Very glad to see quoted here one of the most excellent treatise on the Church, that of Adrien Grea, a masterpiece!, and, strange enough, never quoted by Fenton (as far as i know)

Quote:
Anyone who does not see any difficulty here, from than angle of traditional Catholic/sedevacantist episcopal consecrations in our day is missing something. Nor is there any easy way around the difficulty, as far as I can see, by saying that the popes and theologians were envisaging "normal times" and hence that we cannot extrapolate from their statements a universal principle applicable even in very extraordinary times. The truth is that the popes were in fact appealing to a universal principle in order to resolve, by its application, the concrete cases confronting them.

This difficulty, which has received relatively little attention, strikes me as worthy of much closer attention. The fact that it is often invoked by home-aloners who absurdly refuse even to receive the sacrements from priests legitimately ordained and named to ecclesiastical offices before the death of Pope Pius XII, has perhaps been responsible for causing more serious and informed Catholics to dismiss the whole subject.
[/quote]

Well John it seems as if i miss something... i always believed that that principle applied only for normal times. It`s historically true that the Pope appointed the Bishops either directly or indirectly through the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, etc., but it is also true that during the Arian crisis, there were 2 saint Bishops who consacrated several Bishops outside theire jurisdiction and they do this because they couldn`t ask Rome for permission. This case is given by Dom Grea; As soon as i be able to translate that passage, i`ll do it.

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Daly wrote:
And more light again is shed on the importance of this issue by the quotation posted by Mike here. - a post which surprisingly has not so far provoked any discussion.

Anyone who does not see any difficulty here, from than angle of traditional Catholic/sedevacantist episcopal consecrations in our day is missing something. Nor is there any easy way around the difficulty, as far as I can see, by saying that the popes and theologians were envisaging "normal times" and hence that we cannot extrapolate from their statements a universal principle applicable even in very extraordinary times. The truth is that the popes were in fact appealing to a universal principle in order to resolve, by its application, the concrete cases confronting them.

This difficulty, which has received relatively little attention, strikes me as worthy of much closer attention. The fact that it is often invoked by home-aloners who absurdly refuse even to receive the sacrements from priests legitimately ordained and named to ecclesiastical offices before the death of Pope Pius XII, has perhaps been responsible for causing more serious and informed Catholics to dismiss the whole subject.


Yes, this question is troublesome. The home-aloners have certainly confused this issue and effectively minimized it in many minds as well (that's exactly what came to my mind when I read the article Mike had posted). But did the popes and theologians forsee this crisis? Also, have the theologians fully explained the Western Schism? Or are many questions about that lesser crisis still unanswered?

Robert


Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:37 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John,

I founded in the web an issue defending Mons. Lefebvre`s consacrations, quoting the same examples of Dom Grea. This was what i refered to:

Quote:
Dom A. Grea, whose attachment to papal primacy is beyond all suspicion, writes that "thus in the 4th century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled among the eastern churches devastated by the Arians and consecrated Catholic bishops without having any special jurisdiction"5 or, as the young Conciliar priest might put it, "without the required authorization." Other Catholic bishops, defenders of Catholic orthodoxy whom the Church today venerates on her altars, acted in the same way. "Without the required authorization" they conferred not only the power of orders, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, but also, when necessity demanded it, the power of jurisdiction over individual dioceses. Dom Grea calls this action "the extraordinary action of the episcopate," called by extraordinary circumstances to "supply a remedy to the pressing need of the Catholic faithful," and he writes that in such cases the episcopate acts "with the tacit consent of its head made certain by the necessity."
5. Dom A. Grea, De I'Eglise et de sa divine constitution, Vol. I, p.218.


So it seems that it may exist some licit consacrations of Bishops without any express approval of the Pope (a tacit one seems to be enough when the posibility of asking the Pope is lacking).

Is this what your question refered to or i completely misunderstood it?

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Hi John D.,

Did not Pope Pius XII in his encyclical on Communism and the Church in China, June 29, 1958 resolve many outstanding theological questions concerning jurisdiction: your first quoted document?

Ad Apostolorum Principis by Pope Pius XII wrote:

(Numbers shown indicate numbered paragraphs from this encyclical:)

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14]

41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.

42. To such conduct the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber."[15] The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."[16]

43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.

45. Well known are the terms of Vatican Council's solemn definition: "Relying on the open testimony of the Scriptures and abiding by the wise and clear decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by virtue of which all the faithful must believe that 'the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the Successor of the blessed Peter and continues to be the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is the blessed Peter our Lord Jesus Christ committed the full power of caring for, ruling and governing the Universal Church....'

46. "We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation."[17]

47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]

48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Pope Speaks, 5 (Spring, 1959),189-99.

REFERENCES:
# 1. "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" 18 (1926) 432.
# 2. Ibid.
# 3. AAS 44 (1952) 153 and ff.
# 4. AAS 47 (1955) 5 ff.
# 5. Luke 20:25.
# 6. Acts 5:29.
# 7. Isaias 9:6.
# 8. Cfr. message of Pius XI to the Apostolic Delegate to China, Aug. 1, 1928: "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" 20 (1928) 245.
# 9. Address to Cardinals and Bishops, Nov. 2, 1954: AAS 46 (1954) 671-672. [Eng. tr.: TPS v. 1, no. 4, pp. 375 ff. -- Ed.]
# 10. AAS 4(1912) 658.
# 11. Canon 331, sect. 3.
# 12. Canon 329, sect. 2.
# 13. Encyclical letter"Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943: AAS 35 (1943) 211-212.
# 14. Encyclical epistle "Ad Sinarum gentem," Oct. 7, 1954: AAS 47 (1955) 9.
# 15. John 10:1.
# 16. John 10:4-5.
# 17. Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; Coll. Lac., Vll, p.484.
# 18. Canon 953.
# 19. Decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, April 9, 1951: AAS 43 (1951) pp. 217-18.
# 20. 1 Peter 5:7.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Msgr. Fenton, Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church wrote:

There is another important item on which the Mystici Corporis Christi issues a doctrinal decision. Prior to the issuance of this encyclical Catholic theologians had debated as to whether the residential bishops of the Catholic Church derived their power of jurisdiction immediately from Our Lord or from Him through the Roman Pontiff. In this document, Pope Pius XII took occasion to speak of the Bishops' power of jurisdiction and he described it as something "which they receive directly (immediate) from the same Supreme Pontiff."9 In the edition of his Institutiones uris Publici Ecclesiastici which came out after the issuance of the Mystici Corporis Christi, Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.10

Notes

1 Cf. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1958), pp. 165-70.
2 Cf. ibid., pp. 171-88.
3 The tendency called "liberal Catholicism" is founded on religious indifferentism, involving opposition to the dogmas of the necessity of the true faith and of the true Church for the attainment of eternal salvation. Cf. "The Components of Liberal Catholicism," in AER, CXXXIX, 1 (July, 1958), 36-53.
4 NCWC translation, n. 13.
5 Ibid., n. 14.
6 Ibid., n. 65.
7 Ibid., n. 22.
8 Ibid., n. 103.
9 Ibid., n. 42.
10 Cf. Ottaviani, Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, 3rd ed. (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), I, 413; and Fenton, "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals," in AER, CXXI, 2, 3 (Aug., Sept., 1949), 136-50; 210-20.
11 Cf. NCWC translation, n. 18.
12 Cf. ibid. In this passage Pope Pius XII used the words, which the Vatican Council appended to its canons for the Constitution Dei Filius. Cf. Denz., 1820.
13 NCWC translation, n. 20.
14 Ibid., n. 27.
15 The original Latin text and the official English translation of this document are to be found in AER. CXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1952), 307-15.
16 Ibid., 313.
17 Ibid., 314.
18 "The Teachings of the Ci riesce." in AER, CXXX, 2 (Feb., 1954), 114-23. The passage cited is found on pp. 122 f.
19 The text and the English translation of Si diligis are carried in AER, CXXXI, 2 (August, 1954), 127-37. The passage cited is on pp. 133 f.
20 The English translation of this letter is carried in AER, CXXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1957), 274-80. The citation is from p. 275.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., 275 f.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Ad Apostolorum Principis by Pope Pius XII wrote:
43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.


What has been done recently appears to have little to do with belittling obedience. How can it be that "all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown" when the entire reason for the "disobedience" is that there appears to be no competent authority to appeal to? Not even the sedeplentists appeal to "rome" for a decision.

This does conjure up the "home alone" argument (for me at least).

Robert


Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Dear Cristian,

Your write :

Quote:
"it is also true that during the Arian crisis, there were 2 saint [correct English here is "holy"] Bishops who consacrated several Bishops outside theire jurisdiction and they do [did] this because they couldn`t ask Rome for permission."


There is no doubt that Dom Gréa and many other eminent writers think that this is historically true. But in fact it is very doubtful. Below I paste in a summary of the facts by a historian friend of mine. It seems to me that if history is to clinch the theological issue, against the apparent meaning of the texts I have quoted from the popes, we need an unquestionable historical example of a bishop who definitely had no delegated jurisdiction and definitely consecrated without mandate for grave reason and whose act has subsequently been approved by the Church. Despite numerous attempts and claims to offer such examples I remain satisfied that none has yet been found. Here is the article :

Is There a Historical Precedent for Episcopal Consecrations without the Mandate of the Holy See ?

1. First of all, a very important precision :


It is quite certain that for some centuries the Holy See did not take part in the election and consecration of many bishops...

However, this by no means casts doubt on the crucial need for the apostolic mandate. This is because:

“Even when, as occurs in some cases, persons or groups of persons other thna the Pope are permitted to intervene in some way in the choice of a candidate for the episcopate, this is legitimate only in virtue of some grant—express and particular—made by the Holy See in favour of some clearly determined persons or groups, in conditions and circumstances clearly specified.” (Pius XII, encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem, 7th October 1954.)

2. The Case of Saint Eusebius of Samosata

The following is the only historical source which some persons have considered as sufficient foundation for stating that Saint Eusebius of Samosata undertook unauthorised episcopal consecrations:

“He [the emperor Valens] began by relegating Pelagius to Arabia, then he relegated the saintly Meletius to Armenia, and finally he relegated Eusebius, sweat-drenched by his apostolic labours, to Thrace. Upon learning that many churches were bereft of pastors, the latter [i.e. Eusebius], clad in the costume of a soldier and wearing a turban on his head, travelled throughout Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine, laying hands on priests and deacons; if there were bishops who shared his opinion, he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them.”

(Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, Vth century)

“...he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them.”

1. Does this expression necessarily refer to episcopal consecration ?

2. Even on the hypothesis that it does indeed refer to episcopal consecrations…

…what source of information informs us that they were carried out in conflict with the canonical norms then in force in Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine, three sub-provinces belonging to the same eparchy (ecclesiastical province)?

It is know that the canonical norms then in force in that region required that the bishop be consecrated and receive jurisdiction with the assent of the bishops of the heptarchy.

But Theodoret specifically mentions that Eusebius had recourse to other bishops : “if there were bishops who shared his opinion, he also designated chiefs in favour of those churches which needed them.”


Thus the evidence provided by Theodoret of Cyrrhus does not prove that Eusebius carried out uncanonical or unauthorised episcopal consecrations. As it is the only known evidence bearing on the subject, it remains perfectly reasonable to hold that he did no such thing.


Cf. Frère A.-M. Lenoir, "Saint Eusèbe de Samosate et les consécrations épiscopales en Syrie au IVème siècle", in Sedes Sapientiae, nn° 22 et 23 (automne 1987 et hiver 1988).


Last edited by John Daly on Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Dear Robert,

Quote:
What has been done recently appears to have little to do with belittling obedience. How can it be that "all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown" when the entire reason for the "disobedience" is that there appears to be no competent authority to appeal to? Not even the sedeplentists appeal to "rome" for a decision.


Undoubtedly many of the remarks in Pope Pius XI's two encyclicals on the topic and many of those in Pope Pius VI's encyclical Caritas do not apply to traditionalist consecrations. They are specific references to specific circumstances. The problem is caused by the fact that in other places these popes appear clearly to lay down a universal principle. This is essentially the same principle stated by Mgr Fenton in the article I linked to above. It is, in a nutshell, that the episcopal mission (which is the formal element of apostolicity) comes necessarily from the Holy See, either by direct act or by the act of one whom the Holy See has delegated. In the past, the delegation was widespread. Since communication has become easier, all permanent delegated jurisdiction to consecrate bishops has been withdrawn and "returned to its source".

Whatever may be said to counter this difficulty, the fact that it is used or abused by home-aloners is not a refutation !

In Domino et Domina,

John


Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Daly wrote:
Dear Robert,

Quote:
What has been done recently appears to have little to do with belittling obedience. How can it be that "all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown" when the entire reason for the "disobedience" is that there appears to be no competent authority to appeal to? Not even the sedeplentists appeal to "rome" for a decision.


Undoubtedly many of the remarks in Pope Pius XI's two encyclicals on the topic and many of those in Pope Pius VI's encyclical Caritas do not apply to traditionalist consecrations. They are specific references to specific circumstances. The problem is caused by the fact that in other places these popes appear clearly to lay down a universal principle. This is essentially the same principle stated by Mgr Fenton in the article I linked to above. It is, in a nutshell, that the episcopal mission (which is the formal element of apostolicity) comes necessarily from the Holy See, either by direct act or by the act of one whom the Holy See has delegated. In the past, the delegation was widespread. Since communication has become easier, all permanent delegated jurisdiction to consecrate bishops has been withdrawn and "returned to its source".

Whatever may be said to counter this difficulty, the fact that it is used or abused by home-aloners is not a refutation !

In Domino et Domina,

John


Dear John D,

Yes, I agree. I was just pointing out that some of what Teresa highlighted seemed out of context; proof texts for the home alone argument. It seems that there is little support here for the argument of necessity...are we saying that there can be no necesssity with regard to an universal principle? If we accept this are we not "home alone"?

Robert


Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:38 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Dear John D,

Yes, I agree. I was just pointing out that some of what Teresa highlighted seemed out of context; proof texts for the home alone argument. It seems that there is little support here for the argument of necessity...are we saying that there can be no necesssity with regard to an universal principle? If we accept this are we not "home alone"?

Robert


Robert,

I was not quoting any texts as support for the home-alone position. I'm surprised that you came to that conclusion. The subject of this thread is "Necessity of Apostolic Mandate". I used the quoted texts only as examples of papal definition and affirmation of Apostolic Mandate: that is all.

The fact is some (what I will call) semi-home-aloners would gladly attend Mass of a priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebrve (not priests ordained by the subsequently consecrated bishops), Archbishop Thuc, or Bishop Mendez if they lived close to one, e.g., Hutton Gibson. Some have made major geographical moves, or travel many miles to assist at Mass of one of these priests. Other home-aloners are far more severe in their interpretations of jurisdiction and its present application.

I will not pretend to know anything about these theological deeps, but the issue of jurisdictional bishops is incredibly important: it's the sedeplenists' most potent argument against sedevacantism.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
“…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)


So the Bishops have it flown to them. So what happens during interregna? Does the power die with the pope? Or if we have an extended interregnum?

Besides did not Paul VI say that he was ‘pars inter pares’ with the other bishops and surrender his supreme authority? And did not B XVI give up his patriarchood of the Western Church?


Quote:
Is this what your question referred to or i completely misunderstood it?

Cristian”


Indeed that is what I was referring to.


Epikeia and validity notwithstanding the issue Rome had with Fellay seems to center around liceity. What in fact is Bp. Fellay asking Rome pertaining to this?


Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:33 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Dear John D,

Yes, I agree. I was just pointing out that some of what Teresa highlighted seemed out of context; proof texts for the home alone argument. It seems that there is little support here for the argument of necessity...are we saying that there can be no necesssity with regard to an universal principle? If we accept this are we not "home alone"?

Robert


Robert,

I was not quoting any texts as support for the home-alone position. I'm surprised that you came to that conclusion. The subject of this thread is "Necessity of Apostolic Mandate". I used the quoted texts only as examples of papal definition and affirmation of Apostolic Mandate: that is all.

The fact is some (what I will call) semi-home-aloners would gladly attend Mass of a priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebrve (not priests ordained by the subsequently consecrated bishops), Archbishop Thuc, or Bishop Mendez if they lived close to one, e.g., Hutton Gibson. Some have made major geographical moves, or travel many miles to assist at Mass of one of these priests. Other home-aloners are far more severe in their interpretations of jurisdiction and its present application.

I will not pretend to know anything about these theological deeps, but the issue of jurisdictional bishops is incredibly important: it's the sedeplenists' most potent argument against sedevacantism.


Dear Teresa,

Sorry for the confusion, to clarify I'll say that I didn't think you were making a case for the "home alone" argument. I was just pointing out that some examples you highlighted were not applicable, IMHO.

If I'm not mistaken, it matters little here whether one is sedevacantist or sedeplentist...it's not an issue that "favors" anyone.

Robert


Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Having read all the above material, I still don't see that this issue involves anything more than simple man-made Church law--a "command and control" issue, rather than doctrinal or divine law. In normal times, the pope does indeed appoint, or at least approve, episcopal sees. Clearly, even if one is not a sedevacantist, this is not normal times. Should the Vatican be destroyed or invaded by Muslims, the administrative requirements to formally control the world's dioceses would be impossible; but, would it be any different than what the situation was in, say, A.D. 200?

Edited for grammar 6/30/08


Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Dear John Daly,

Thank you for this fascinating discussion, one which I do not think has been adequately discussed by any in a serious way, since the traditionalist response had begun in the 1970's. I think that many of us have taken certain things for granted, as traditional Catholics before us have made judgments on some matters which have not been tested by fire so to speak.

It seems to me that the there are several questions at play here:

1. Is the authorization to consecrate a bishop a matter of Divine or ecclesiastical law? Can a bishop be lawfully consecrated without direct or at least indirect approval of the pope?
2. Can bishops be lawfully consecrated during papal interregums? I believe Bp. Pivaranus uses this argument, I will try to look it up, as he cites historical precedent.
3. If the matter is of ecclesiastical law, can the principle of epikeia be used to justify the consecrations of bishops during the interregnum, in a case of a long term sedevecante.

I am sure there are other questions to be added to these, but so far these seem to me to be the pressing questions at hand here.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:14 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Dear John Daly,

John Daly wrote:
Dear Cristian,

Your write :

Quote:
"it is also true that during the Arian crisis, there were 2 saint [correct English here is "holy"] Bishops who consacrated several Bishops outside theire jurisdiction and they do [did] this because they couldn`t ask Rome for permission."


There is no doubt that Dom Gréa and many other eminent writers think that this is historically true. But in fact it is very doubtful. Below I paste in a summary of the facts by a historian friend of mine. It seems to me that if history is to clinch the theological issue, against the apparent meaning of the texts I have quoted from the popes, we need an unquestionable historical example of a bishop who definitely had no delegated jurisdiction and definitely consecrated without mandate for grave reason and whose act has subsequently been approved by the Church. Despite numerous attempts and claims to offer such examples I remain satisfied that none has yet been found.


Well all this is new for me... and prima facie it seems right.
Reading more carefully the quotation of Pius XII i realized this:
Quote:
But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined.


I thought that a tacit approval would have been enough but it is difficult to see how to reconcile it with the teaching of Pius XII.

Now, what i still can`t see is, if this is true, what is the problem with us, sedevacantists?

Cristian

PS, Thanks for the answer and for the corrections!
PS 2: is there any possibility to post the complete issue of your friend?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Pope Pius XII wrote:
But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined.

I thought that a tacit approval would have been enough but it is difficult to see how to reconcile it with the teaching of Pius XII.

It seems to me that tacit approval can be reconciled if there is no authority to give approval.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Now, what i still can`t see is, if this is true, what is the problem with us, sedevacantists?

Again, this appears to be a traditionalist issue, not only a sedevacantist issue.

Robert


Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:34 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Now, what i still can`t see is, if this is true, what is the problem with us, sedevacantists?

Again, this appears to be a traditionalist issue, not only a sedevacantist issue.

Robert


Ok Robert, it is true, you are right, but i can`t see what the problem is...

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Now, what i still can`t see is, if this is true, what is the problem with us, sedevacantists?
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Again, this appears to be a traditionalist issue, not only a sedevacantist issue.

Ok Robert, it is true, you are right, but i can`t see what the problem is...

Cristian

Cristian:
The "problem", as you call it, can most easily be understood by reading this:
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote:
Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.10

So, essentially, what may have occurred in the past (St. Eusebius, for example), does no longer hold true now.

And, Yes, Robert is absolutely correct in his assessment.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
Cristian:
The "problem", as you call it, can most easily be understood by reading this:
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote:
Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.10

So, essentially, what may have occurred in the past (St. Eusebius, for example), does no longer hold true now.

And, Yes, Robert is absolutely correct in his assessment.
[/quote]

Ken please don`t get angry with me... but if i am not mistaken this question is a "problem" for us, traditionalists... and i don`t understand how it can be that.
One of the questions that came up was if a tacit approval of the Pope would be enough in some extraordinary cases for a "licit appointment". Dom Grea, who also defended that the jursidiction of the Bishops comes (flows, derives) directly from the Pope and not from Our Lord, asserted that, whereas Pius XII and the other quotations seems to indicate the opposite.

Most probably i`m missing something... :oops:
Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Daly wrote:
There is no doubt that Dom Gréa and many other eminent writers think that this is historically true. But in fact it is very doubtful. Below I paste in a summary of the facts by a historian friend of mine. It seems to me that if history is to clinch the theological issue, against the apparent meaning of the texts I have quoted from the popes, we need an unquestionable historical example of a bishop who definitely had no delegated jurisdiction and definitely consecrated without mandate for grave reason and whose act has subsequently been approved by the Church. Despite numerous attempts and claims to offer such examples I remain satisfied that none has yet been found.


Is it reasonable to think that history would give us an answer to this issue? In another case, the pope-heretic question, history does not appear to give us an answer either. St. Robert says that historically no pope had ever actually been a heretic...yet the idea that a pope cannot fall into heresy as a private teacher is not certain.

Robert


Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Hello,

There is a vast difference between the non sanctioned consecrations of a Bishop during the reign of a Pope, and a consecration during an interregnum, isn't there? Perhaps we can argue the historicity of the latter, but is there any doubt as to the former? And is it not true that many medieval consecrations took place without the direct knowledge of the Pope, and often times took months to reach his ears? Certainly there is a difference between acting out of disobedience, and acting out of necessity. This, in my conversations with some Priests, seems to be the basis for invoking epikeia in regards to the apostolic mandate. (well, that combined with the argument that the exact method of receiving the mandate varies with the era and circumstance)

I would like to throw this out there for some feedback if you will...

I think at times, we tend to view ordinary, supplied, and delegated jurisdiction as separate species of jurisdiction all together. Aren't they better understood not as separate types, but as different means of administering and receiving the same jurisdiction? In other words...jurisdiction is jurisdiction, regardless of how it is received...and if you have it, and have it legitimately, then you are acting with the sanction of the Church.

Isn't that the nature of canon 209? When common error, and doubt arises, the Church will supply it directly in order to preserve the common good. Aren't traditional Bishops and Priests "approved" by the Church, by virtue of canon 209? Here is a quote taken from Bishop Pivarunas's article in the Fall-Winter 2007 issue of "The Reign of Mary":

"That Color of Title is no longer required, and in case of common error, no matter how created, the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the benefit of the people." (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M.., LL.B. (November 1957)

Given that we have found ourselves in a position that the theologians have never specifically addressed, wouldn't a prudent invocation of epikeia be justified...as long as we are not contradicting divine law, or inventing from scratch novel principles to justify our stance?

In Christ,
Bill


Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:06 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
This may also be of interest:

http://cmri.org/96prog9.htm

CMRI article wrote:
The following is an excerpt from Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico by Dr. Stephano Filiberto, who has a doctorate in Ecclesiastical History:

“On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote.
“After almost three years, the mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of Peter.
“During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.”

Here are a few examples of the bishops thus consecrated at the time of vacancy of the Apostolic See:

1. In Avranches, France, Radulfus de Thieville, consecrated November, 1269;
2. In Aleria, Corsica, Nicolaus Forteguerra, consecrated 1270;
3. In Antivari, Epiro (Northwestern Greece), Caspar Adam, O.P., consecrated 1270;
4. In Auxerre, France, Erardus de Lesinnes, consecrated January, 1271;
5. In Cagli, Italy, Jacobus, consecrated September 8, 1270;
6. In Le Mans, France, Geoffridus d’Asse, consecrated 1270;
7. In Cefalu, Sicily, Petrus Taurs, consecrated 1269;
8. In Cervia, Italy, Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P., consecrated 1270.


Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
Cristian:
The "problem", as you call it, can most easily be understood by reading this:
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote:
Cardinal Ottaviani took occasion to state that this teaching, which had hitherto been considered up until this time as more probable, and even as common doctrine, must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII.10

So, essentially, what may have occurred in the past (St. Eusebius, for example), does no longer hold true now.

And, Yes, Robert is absolutely correct in his assessment.


Ken please don`t get angry with me...

Oh, Cristian, for Heaven's Sake, how could I, or anyone, ever be angry with you? :oops:

How would we even dare? :shock:

Don't be silly...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Is it reasonable to think that history would give us an answer to this issue?

In my opinion, no. However, history can, and most often does in cases like this, give us some idea of precedent, and help us to understand how we may decide to act in a similar situation. This precedent points us in the proper direction, so to speak.

Robert Bastaja wrote:
In another case, the pope-heretic question, history does not appear to give us an answer either. St. Robert says that historically no pope had ever actually been a heretic...yet the idea that a pope cannot fall into heresy as a private teacher is not certain.

Yes. But, surely, what St. Robert teaches on the subject helps us to eliminate from our investigation certain ways of looking at our situation, does it not?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
KenGordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Is it reasonable to think that history would give us an answer to this issue?

In my opinion, no. However, history can, and most often does in cases like this, give us some idea of precedent, and help us to understand how we may decide to act in a similar situation. This precedent points us in the proper direction, so to speak.

Of course. And we would look first to history for a precedent...that does not mean we'll find one however.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
In another case, the pope-heretic question, history does not appear to give us an answer either. St. Robert says that historically no pope had ever actually been a heretic...yet the idea that a pope cannot fall into heresy as a private teacher is not certain.

Yes. But, surely, what St. Robert teaches on the subject helps us to eliminate from our investigation certain ways of looking at our situation, does it not?

Absolutely, but my point is the he did not completely eliminate it from consideration.


Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
In the year 130, did Pope St. Telesphorus appoint each bishop in the world? Did he confirm them all?


Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:46 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
TKGS wrote:
In the year 130, did Pope St. Telesphorus appoint each bishop in the world? Did he confirm them all?


No, but the precise point at issue is:

All jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff to each bishop; it is required by divine law that each bishop receive his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff. This was disputed in the past, but since the teaching of Pius XII it is certain.

History shows us the various means by which this was done in the different ages, but Pope Pius XII seems to instruct us that the only lawful means are those expressly and explicitly approved by the Roman Pontiff. Thus, we would read the history of the early ages as implying that St. Peter had legislated that bishops were to be chosen by the local clergy, consecrated by their neighbouring bishops, and then approved tacitly or explicitly by the Roman Pontiff after the fact. Later, this means was abrogated and each new episcopal appointment was required to be approved in advance of consecration. There are no exceptions to this in the modern era.

An alternative view is that Pius XII does not mean to teach that during an interregnum an appeal to future approval would be unlawful, since it still respects the divine law that all jurisdiction comes from the pope. I agree with John Daly that the texts seem to make this interpretation impossible.

Whether or not we regard this as a "problem" for traditional Catholics depends upon our understanding of what our bishops are for. If they exist in order to provide sacraments (Holy Orders and Confirmation) and do not pretend to be Successors of the Apostles, then the problem would seem to be academic. Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John, said:

Quote:
all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error


If this is so then it would seem that all traditional bishops following Lefebvre are not bishops at all, and all their ordained priests are as phoney as the NO priests would it not?


Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:50 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Lane wrote:
Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.

I see what you mean by some of this statement.

Since almost all of the Traditionalist Bishops (at least those consecrated after the death of Pius XII) have received their consecrations outside of the ways codified, limited, by Pius XII, then all their consecrations are, most certainly, illicit: that those Bishops are "...the same as a thief and a robber." because they "...enter(ed) not by the door...".

A "...thief or a robber..." does, of course, obtain possession of the goods, but every time he uses them, he, most certainly in this case, probably commits sin, at least materially.

But, if they aren't Successors of the Apostles, of whom are they the successors, then?

The Sacrament of Order came down to us from the Apostles. Therefore, if their orders are valid, it seems to me that the Traditionalist Bishops are Successors of the Apostles, but illicitly so.

If what you say is true, that they are not Successors of the Apostles, then, by definition, their orders are not valid.

How can you separate the succession from the orders? It seems to me what without the succession, there would be no orders. All of these Bishops can trace their orders right back to the Apostles. What is that if not "Succession"?

Please explaiin your reasoning. Or define what you mean by "Successors of the Apostles."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
csibf wrote:
John, said:

Quote:
all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error


If this is so then it would seem that all traditional bishops following Lefebvre are not bishops at all, and all their ordained priests are as phoney as the NO priests would it not?


I presume you mean, "subsequent to Lefebvre"?

Anyway, no, that is not what I meant. There are three issues:

1. Validity of Orders
2. Liceity of various actions, including episcopal consecration
3. Validity of appointment to an office

Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, or by Archbishop Thuc, or by Bishop Mendez, are validly consecrated as bishops. I think that much is not reasonably doubted.

Whether or not it was lawful in each case to consecrate, or to receive consecration, to the episcopal rank of Holy Orders, is disputable.

The office of “successor of the Apostles” is the office of true “teacher and shepherd” (doctor and pastor) in the Church, an office which implies the mandate of Our Lord Jesus Christ to teach and to rule in His Name, with his authority. “He who hears you, hears Me.” Only bishops have this office, but not every man who has been validly consecrated has this office. If a validly-ordained Greek bishop were received into the Church he would not become by that fact a “successor of the Apostles” – yet, he could validly make priests and confirm Christians.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
KenGordon wrote:
Or define what you mean by "Successors of the Apostles."


This is a term in theology. It refers to a man who has the same role as the Apostles (but without their special charisms, such as personal infallibility). A Successor of the Apostles is a man appointed by the Roman Pontiff to govern a particular church (i.e. a diocese). He has the power to teach, ex officio, and the power to rule (i.e. jurisdiction). To provide an illustrative contrast, the power of a priest to teach is purely subsidiary. He acts as his bishop's auxiliary, teaching his flock in the name of his bishop.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Or define what you mean by "Successors of the Apostles."


This is a term in theology. It refers to a man who has the same role as the Apostles (but without their special charisms, such as personal infallibility). A Successor of the Apostles is a man appointed by the Roman Pontiff to govern a particular church (i.e. a diocese). He has the power to teach, ex officio, and the power to rule (i.e. jurisdiction).

Then what you are saying is that "Successor to the Apostles" is an office, like President, or Justice of the Peace, or Protonotrary Apostolic, or Monsignor. Is that not correct?

Yet, if any Bishop has valid orders, then he must also be a successor to the Apostles in fact, if not in office.

So, there is a double meaning to that set of words, and therein lies the confusion.

And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.

And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders. Perhaps this is one reason there is so much division amongst them.

St. Gregory of Tours says that even in his time, scarcely one Bishop in a 1000 was worthy of his office.

What responsibility they must bear before God!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
KenGordon wrote:
And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.

And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders. Perhaps this is one reason there is so much division amongst them.


Perhaps. But I am not really interested in accusing them of anything or even criticising them. I'm just observing that none of them is this thing which is signified by the title, Successor of the Apostles. They don't carry the Apostolic Succession, and however it survives this period, it will not be via these men.

This article has some useful information, and perhaps we can best think of our traditional bishops as quasi-auxiliary bishops (but without mission): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.

And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders. Perhaps this is one reason there is so much division amongst them.


Perhaps. But I am not really interested in accusing them of anything or even criticising them. I'm just observing that none of them is this thing which is signified by the title, Successor of the Apostles. They don't carry the Apostolic Succession, and however it survives this period, it will not be via these men.


I Agree.

What i believe is that this doctrine (on the source of jurisdiction) is a "problem" for G. des Lauriers`thesis, because he thought that if a bishop appointed by the Novus Ordo`s antipopes, would convert he would have (formal) jurisdiction and would have the power to admonish (warn) them, etc. I can`t see how to reconcile this teaching with the one definied by Pius XII, is anyone able to do it?

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
What i believe is that this doctrine (on the source of jurisdiction) is a "problem" for G. des Lauriers`thesis, because he thought that if a bishop appointed by the Novus Ordo`s antipopes, would convert he would have (formal) jurisdiction and would have the power to admonish (warn) them, etc. I can`t see how to reconcile this teaching with the one definied by Pius XII, is anyone able to do it?


What about this?

The office of “Bishop of Somewhere” has been established by papal authority. Attached to it is ordinary jurisdiction. The Church supplies jurisdiction in common error and positive and probable doubt of fact or law. This is all explicitly in the Code. So, if Paul VI appointed a Catholic to an existing office of ordinary of Somewhere, then the appointment would be valid by virtue of supplied jurisdiction (due to common error), and the appointee would truly be Bishop of Somewhere, and if he had valid episcopal orders, he would be a true Successor of the Apostles, having received his jurisdiction immediately or mediately from the Roman Pontiff, as required by divine law.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Quote:
a successor to the Apostles in fact, if not in office.


So my question is what can one do that the other can't or vice versa. How do they differ from the Bishops at large or Bishops without a see. Are these too impotent? Toothless tigers? Makes me think that we are getting close to the angels dancing on a pin.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
csibf wrote:
Quote:
a successor to the Apostles in fact, if not in office.


So my question is what can one do that the other can't or vice versa.


There is no such distinction. A bishop who does not have jurisdiction is not a Successor of the Apostles, period, because he lacks an integral element of that status or title. I am not a bishop, because I lack episcopal orders. The fact that I am male, and baptised, and a member of the Church, three of the required elements, does not make me a Successor of the Apostles at all. Likewise a bishop who lacks jurisdiction lacks something integral to the Apostolic Succession - the power to rule.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
From an an interesting article on Jurisdiction by Rama Coomaraswamy

Quote:
...First of all, just what is jurisdiction? A priest and/or a bishop, when ordained/consecrated, is given both the power to confect the sacraments and the office that goes with this power. The office, or more literally, the authority to use this power in the name of the Church, comes under the heading of jurisdiction. In essence Jurisdiction is the AUTHORITY to teach, govern and sanctify in the name of the Church. (The Church is the Body of Christ, and hence manifests His presence -teaching, governing and sanctifying - in this world.) Whence comes this authority?

Scripture informs us that "all authority comes from God." It is in turn delegated to appropriate individuals who - unless they be tyrants - wield their authority in God's name or on behalf of God. This is true in the family where the Father wields authority over his wife and children; in the army where the general wields authority of lesser officers and ordinary soldiers. It is also true with the Catholic Church.

The Authority to teach, govern, and sanctify within the Church derives from God and no one else. However, as in other situations such as the army and the family, it is delegated in a hierarchical manner. It is invested in the Pope (or some might say, in the "papacy"), and is in turn delegated by him to the “bishops in union with him.” The bishops in turn are able to provide the priests they ordain with an office which is to say that they in turn provide the priests they govern with jurisdiction. Under ordinary circumstances no layman has the right to teach, govern, or sanctify in the name of the Church. This does not mean that a layman cannot state what the teaching of the Church is on a certain subject. Nor does it mean that he does not have the responsibility of teaching, governing and sanctifying himself and his family. It simply means that he is not a member of the teaching hierarchy of the Church. As such - and this is important - no layman should be telling other Catholics (outside his own family) to stay away from the Sacraments. His jurisdiction does not extend beyond his own family - and even within his family he cannot tell his wife and children to sin. Should he do so, he would be abusing the authority invested in him as a father, appropriating to himself God's authority, and as such he should be labeled a tyrant.
Does jurisdiction exist in the post-Conciliar Church? As traditional Catholics know, the post-Conciliar Church teaches falsely. To say it has jurisdiction is to state that it has the authority to teach error in God's name. Such is of course impossible for it imputes to God an evil intention. (God may allow evil, but cannot intend it.) Hence traditional Catholics deny that the post-Conciliar Church has any real jurisdiction. Those who believe otherwise had best obey the teachings of this Church in toto which includes obeying all the post-Conciliar "popes," accepting the new "mass" and all the errors embraced by Vatican II. None of us can have our cake and eat it....


I have the full article which is 11 pages long and will be glad to e-mail it to anyone.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.

And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders.

Perhaps. But I am not really interested in accusing them of anything or even criticising them.

Neither am I: I am simply making an observation.

John Lane wrote:
They don't carry the Apostolic Succession, and however it survives this period, it will not be via these men.

Agreed, and this is essentially what I have been saying for several years, although not in those words, nor so clearly.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Let's try to think some of this out a bit more:

First of all, we know that the Apostolic Succession will exist until the end of time. We have Our Lord's word for it.

We know that the Apostolic Succession must be continued through valid, licit, Bishops, at least.

From discussion in a different thread, it appears that God has kept valid, licit, Bishops "in reserve" (so to speak) in many places in the world, some of which appear to be in places like Eastern Europe and China, i.e. those places where the Church was most fiercly persecuted.

From this, can we think that it is our duty to search out, and recognize these valid, licit Successors of the Apostles, if God will allow it?

Perhaps it is not time, yet, for us to succeed at this since it seems obvious to me that God wants the Church to be in eclipse for some time yet, but does this mean that we shouldn't try?

In any case, our resources (ALL our resources) are limited, our numbers are small, and we are widely scattered. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there is more we could do.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Pax Christi !

Quote:
Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.


During this lengthy interregnum, it does appear the traditional bishops look at themselves as Successors of the Apostles, but as bishops without jurisdiction ( in the full sense). While I do not have the competency to argue "yea" or " nay" , my tendency is to look at the traditional bishops in this way. i.e. bishop " in waiting", and in hope that a next Pontiff will approved their Episcopacy , and of course the priest of this sad time, will also be accepted.

I think this whole issue of bishops in our day is one of the " mysteries" that might not be worked out by " lay" apologists, no matter how bright, educated, and wise, some of them are.



John Lane- Do you also hold that the SSPX bishop are not Successors of the Apostles? I would think they will one day be " Sent" by the Church :) :) And also my hope is that so will Bp Pivarunas and others.
In Xto,

Vincent


Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:06 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Dear Vince,

I also believe that when the crisis ends, and the respectable "traditional bishops" place their mitres at the feet of the true pope when he comes again, will be then sent by this true pope to work in the vineyard as legitimate and authorized bishops.

But, I also believe that until this happens, these bishops are not successors of the Apostles, and in my view, at least as it stands now, can only use the principle of epikeia to justify the powers of their episcopacy to ordain and confirm.

There are hundreds of "traditional bishops," far more than most people are aware of, all who appear to have valid lines, but, who we would never give the respect to the "greats" such as the SSPX bishops or Bp. Pivaruanas. See Terry Boyles site for a lengthy list: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

I am not certain if the traditional bishops should have been consecrated to begin with, it may have been a mistake. I understand their motives, but the Divine Law of God, does not allow for this, and I am not certain that epikeia allows for the rationale to reason this out. But, now that the act has been done, and these bishops have been consecrated, but yet are not successors to the Apostles, can they act in the capacity to ordain priests and confirm the laity, while fully understanding that they have no power in the Church, and cannot in any rule over Catholics?

Archbishop Lefevbre clearly saw this problem, and as far as I know, he wanted the SSPX Superior General to be a priest and not a bishop to avoid even the appearance of one of the bishops ruling over Catholics.

But, when we look at the four Society Bishops and Bishop Pivarunas for example, and their great love for the Catholic Faith, I think we can't help to be edified by them. That is why I think that when the Church reforms, the Pope will use these bishops for the good of the Church and will authorize them to lawfully rule and truly become successors to the Apostles.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:57 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Quote:
Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.


During this lengthy interregnum, it does appear the traditional bishops look at themselves as Successors of the Apostles, but as bishops without jurisdiction ( in the full sense).

They either have jurisdiction and therefore they are Successors of the Apostles, or they don't and they are not. There is no third possibility, as far as I know.



Vince Sheridan wrote:
I think this whole issue of bishops in our day is one of the "mysteries" that might not be worked out by " lay" apologists, no matter how bright, educated, and wise, some of them are.

Yes, I agree. As far as I can tell it is a purely theoretical problem anyway, unless you haven't been confirmed and you think that it would be unlawful to approach one of them... :)

Vince Sheridan wrote:
John Lane- Do you also hold that the SSPX bishop are not Successors of the Apostles?

Yes, they are not. Archbishop Lefebvre was, of course, but not his four descendants.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Pax Christi !


Dear Mike,

Many thanks! You stated so much more clearly what I was trying to convey.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Mike wrote:
There are hundreds of "traditional bishops," far more than most people are aware of, all who appear to have valid lines, but, who we would never give the respect to the "greats" such as the SSPX bishops or Bp. Pivaruanas. See Terry Boyles site for a lengthy list: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

Mike, and others: you must be very careful of the accuracy of practically everything you find on Mr. Boyle's site. Much of it is just plain wrong. I would advise anyone visiting his site for any information whatever to corroborate it from another, completely unimpeachable, source before quoting anything.

For instance, he states that Abp. Arrigo Pintonello was heavily involved in the "election" of Victor von Pentz as Linus II, and gives further details. This is absolutely and completely false, as Mr. John Daly has also proven, and as I, personally, know for a fact!

Mr. Boyle is a "Rabid Sedeplenist" and, in my experience, has always been most uncharitible concerning Traditional Catholics in general, and sedevacantists in particular.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
KenGordon wrote:
Mike wrote:
There are hundreds of "traditional bishops," far more than most people are aware of, all who appear to have valid lines, but, who we would never give the respect to the "greats" such as the SSPX bishops or Bp. Pivaruanas. See Terry Boyles site for a lengthy list: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

Mike, and others: you must be very careful of the accuracy of practically everything you find on Mr. Boyle's site. Much of it is just plain wrong. I would advise anyone visiting his site for any information whatever to corroborate it from another, completely unimpeachable, source before quoting anything.

For instance, he states that Abp. Arrigo Pintonello was heavily involved in the "election" of Victor von Pentz as Linus II, and gives further details. This is absolutely and completely false, as Mr. John Daly has also proven, and as I, personally, know for a fact!

Mr. Boyle is a "Rabid Sedeplenist" and, in my experience, has always been most uncharitible concerning Traditional Catholics in general, and sedevacantists in particular.


Dear Ken,

Thanks for the warning. Are you sure that he says what you are claiming he says? Here is the page from the site: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Unknw ... tions.html Am I missing something?

Regarding the factual information he presents on consecration and ordination dates and who consecrated who, my take is that he is trying present accurate information. He leaves many blanks on spots where he does not have the information throughout the webpage.

Do you know of any information on his page that is inaccurate regarding ordination and consecration of the priests and bishops and the dates involved? That is really in my view the most useful aspect of his webpage, so that Catholics can have a resourse to use to learn about these traditional bishops and their lines.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Mike wrote:
Dear Ken,

Thanks for the warning. Are you sure that he says what you are claiming he says? Here is the page from the site: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Unknw ... tions.html Am I missing something?

Well!!! This IS news to me! When I last had the misfortune to visit Mr. Boyle's website, what he had written there concerning Abp. Pintonello was as I have stated it above. I will admit to having visited his site at least a year ago, and did not see any date attached to this latest version. I do know that his earlier, inaccurate, version has been quoted on several other websites.

I will also check with someone who knows who really consecrated Von Pentz, and will post that information here as soon as I can.

Mike wrote:
Regarding the factual information he presents on consecration and ordination dates and who consecrated who, my take is that he is trying to present accurate information. He leaves many blanks on spots where he does not have the information throughout the webpage.

Again, this format is also new to me. Previously, it was not done in this manner and contained several notable errors.

Mike wrote:
Do you know of any information on his page that is inaccurate regarding ordination and consecration of the priests and bishops and the dates involved?

I do not.

Mike wrote:
That is really in my view the most useful aspect of his webpage, so that Catholics can have a resourse to use to learn about these traditional bishops and their lines.

There are other, at least as accurate, such lists. One of our members here recently published some such information concerning "underground" bishops, recognized by the Concilliar Church. I believe the entire "Annuario" is on-line somewhere.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Pax Christi !

I know we have touched on this subject in the past. But really the weak point of our sede vacante position is the lack of a " visible " magisterial i.e. " at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere in the world. And, how the church will recover when mathematically speaking it is impossible to find a bishop " sent" by even Pope John 23rd.

It does bother me at times.

However, I like to think that the respectable traditional bishop have been called by the Holy Ghost. In other word, their calling to the priesthood was from the Holy Ghost, as well as them finding valid Episcopal Holy Orders.

Granted, they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, and thus individually are not " Successors of the Apostles", but, I would hope in some " collective" way they are :) And as Mike noted, if we ever do get a Pope ( God Willing) the respectable Bishop will be given full jurisdiction.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Are we to understand that the 4 ordained by Lefebvre are invalid bishops? If they are so be it. If not it seems that whether JPII approved it or not they are valid, though illicit (???) bishops. If valid then jurisdiction of power comes with ordination does it not?


Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
csibf wrote:
Are we to understand that the 4 ordained by Lefebvre are invalid bishops?

No. The situation is more subtle than that.

csibf wrote:
If not it seems that whether JPII approved it or not they are valid, though illicit (???) bishops.

Well, yes, to a degree. However, whether they are actully licit or illiicit is open to question since there is, apparently, no true hierarchy to which to apply. In my own personal opinion, given the present situation, I believe them to be completely licit.

csibf wrote:
If valid then jurisdiction of power comes with ordination does it not?

No. The "ability" to "have" jurisdiction comes with ordination, but jurisdiction does not automatically come with ordination. It must be "given" to the one ordained by a True Pope, or, in the case of a simple priest, one authorized by him, i.e., a Bishop with jurisdiction.

For instance, one who is not, and never has been, ordained cannot be given any sort of jurisdiction to "bind and loose" in the Church, not even by a Pope, since such a one does not possess one of the essential qualifications.

The Traditional Bishops, and any priests ordained by them, appear to have no authorized jurisdiction in the legal, non-spiritual, sense, since that MUST come from the True Pope by public mandate. Since none of those Bishops have been given such jurisdiction by a True Pope, they are not Successors of the Apostles.

Now, the Church "supplies" a sort of essential jurisdiction where the validity of certain sacraments, i.e., Penance, is involved, but the jurisdiction required to bind all Catholics to a new "doctrine" is most assuredly absent.

Does this help?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:39 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
KenGordon wrote:
For instance, one who is not, and never has been, ordained cannot be given any sort of jurisdiction to "bind and loose" in the Church, not even by a Pope, since such a one does not possess one of the essential qualifications.


Sorry Ken, but this point is incorrect. A layman may possess jurisdiction. Even if a layman were elected pope, he would truly be pope before he received a single degree of Holy Orders. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, with respect to lesser offices.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
For instance, one who is not, and never has been, ordained cannot be given any sort of jurisdiction to "bind and loose" in the Church, not even by a Pope, since such a one does not possess one of the essential qualifications.


Sorry Ken, but this point is incorrect. A layman may possess jurisdiction. Even if a layman were elected pope, he would truly be pope before he received a single degree of Holy Orders. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, with respect to lesser offices.

Hmmm...well, I certainly agree that could (would?) be true with regard to the Pope, although I doubt if one could find, historically, very many instances of such a newly-elected Pope doing anything requiring jurisdiction.

But what other "lesser" offices might there be, other than Cardinal, in which this would be true?

And what duty requiring jurisdiction would a Cardinal have, other than election of a Pope?

Doesn't the word "jurisdiction" imply judging, and ruling?

Perhaps you are including "teaching" as requiring a certain kind of jurisdiction?

Perhaps where our difficulty lies is in our differing understanding of the word "jurisdiction" and its proper application.

Obviously there is more than one type of jurisdiction, differing types being required for differing duties.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 am
Posts: 51
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
Is there anyone here who firmly believes he can say whether there are any bishops or priests that have jurisdiction? If so, how many and who are they?

Also, would someone be so very kind as to reference me to a full explication of the teaching concerning "supplied jurisdiction"?


Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
(In parentheses..., does anyone know a link where i may found the code of canon law in its english version?).

Thanks

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
So then, is this statement wrong?

Quote:
The Authority to teach, govern, and sanctify within the Church derives from God and no one else....


I like what Coomaraswamy said,

Quote:
A person who receives valid "orders" is imprinted with an "invincible character" that cannot be removed from him. As a result of this he receives the power to offer to God the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to dispense the Sacraments and all the means of sanctification that are found in the Church. So wonderful is this "character" and so great are the powers" that go with it that the Catechism of the Council of Trent likens them to "angels and gods". Nevertheless, under ordinary circumstances, priests are not free to use these powers without the permission of a bishop who "incardinates" them into his diocese (his area of governance), provides them with their "office" (or function) and gives them "jurisdiction" the right to ply their craft). Ultimately all jurisdiction derives from Christ and is delegated to us through the pope who is, as the theologians say, "one hierarchical person with our lord." The pope by appointing bishops, provides them with their powers of jurisdiction which in turn are dispensed to priests under their governance.

Traditional priests - those that reject the errors of Vatican II, the heresies being promulgated by the post-Conciliar Church and who administer the Sacraments as they have been throughout the ages - place themselves in "disobedience" to the post-Conciliar hierarchy and therefore function outside their authority. Obviously, as there are no functioning traditional Roman Catholic Bishops who are Ordinaries of dioceses available, they cannot have recourse to such for either incardination or Jurisdiction. They can be likened to "physicians" who are fully qualified for practice but have no license - licensing being in the provenance of "government" and the prerogative or each state or nation. Because of this some have gone so far as to suggest that the laity should refuse to accept their ministrations.


Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:48 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
csibf wrote:
Quote:
and gives them "jurisdiction" the right to ply their craft).

That's not what jurisdiction is. Jurisdiction is the power or authority to teach and govern. The right to use the powers of Orders is granted by those with jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction and the right to use the powers of Orders are quite distinct things.

Dr. Coomaraswamy was apparently a very nice and sincere man, but he was sloppy.

Here is the entry entitled "hierarchy" from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, transl. Doronzo, (Bruce, 1952).

Quote:
hierarchy (Gr. xxxxxxx — sacred authority). The body of persons participating in ecclesiastical power, which is divided into power of orders and power of jurisdiction.

The power of orders is immediately directed to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is immediately directed to ruling the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium) and through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects (judicial power), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law (coactive or coercive power). These last three powers are functions of the same sacred jurisdictional authority with which the Church is endowed as a perfect society.

The power of jurisdiction is divided into: (1) power of forum externum, when directed principally to the common good, in so far as it regulates the social relations of the members and produces public juridical effects; and power of forum internum, when directed principally to private good, in so far as it regulates the relations of consciences with God and is exercised per se secretly and with prevalently moral effects; (2) ordinary power, when ipso jure (by law) it is connected with an office, and delegated power, when it is granted to a person by commission or delegation. Ordinary power is further divided into proper, i.e., annexed to an office and exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio), and vicarious, i.e., annexed to an office but exercised in another’s name.

Since sacred power is twofold, hierarchy is likewise twofold, and therefore we have in the Church the hierarchy of orders, constituted by the body of persons having the power of orders in its different grades (see orders, holy), and the hierarchy of jurisdiction, consisting in the series of those persons who have the power of teaching and governing.

In both hierarchies there are grades, i.e., the fundamental grades, which have their source in divine right (episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate in the hierarchy of orders; papacy and episcopate in the hierarchy of jurisdiction) and the secondary grades, which have been instituted by the Church.

The two hierarchies, although very closely related, are really distinct. They are distinct in their mode of origin (orders are conferred by the appropriate sacrament, while jurisdiction originates through canonical mission) and in their properties (the valid use of orders, in most cases, cannot be prevented, while jurisdiction is revocable). They are, however, mutually related, because jurisdiction supposes orders and, vice versa, the exercise of orders is moderated by jurisdiction; and also because both come from God and directly or indirectly lead to God.

Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics (Gr. xxxxxxx – lot, portion, sort, i.e., in sortem Domini vocati — “called to the lot of the Lord”), while all the others are called laics, laymen, laity (Gr. Xxxxxxx – the people). Since in its bosom the Church carries superiors and subjects, really distinct by divine right, it is an unequal society, i.e., a society in which the members do not have equal rights and duties.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 739
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Necessity of Apostolic Mandate
donumabdeo wrote:
Is there anyone here who firmly believes he can say whether there are any bishops or priests that have jurisdiction?

Yes.

donumabdeo wrote:
If so, how many and who are they?

I know several priests who have jurisdiction. These priests are all over 80 years old, received their jurisdiction from Pius XII-authorized bishops, remain in the places where they received that jurisdiction, and have never had it taken away from them by legitimate authority.

However, although I believe there still exist some "Pius XII" bishops with jurisdiction, I do not know any personally.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:26 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.