It is currently Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:07 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, for me too men as Lefebvre, Ottaviani, etc are in a different plane than Montini, Wojtyla or Ratzinger. But even the latter unfortunately say that “they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors”. So how can you be sure that they are heretics?


In this statement, you are getting to the crux of the issue. Each Catholic during the crisis must be dealt with individually, not as a collective. The writings, statements and actions of each can lead each Catholic to make conclusions about them prior to the judgment of the Church. Only the Church can declare their status in a binding way. Our duty as Catholics is to avoid heresy and heretics. For myself, the evidence leads me to conclude, Paul VI and his successors are heretics and destroyers, and must be avoided. Secondly, I believe the evidence shows that Ottaviani and Lefebvre are Catholic, and must be thought of as brothers in the Faith.

You may differ on this, but either way, only the judgment of the Church is binding, other than that we are merely debating our private conclusions based on the evidence available.

Dear Mike,
I know that for you Conciliar “Popes” are heretics and that, on the contrary, Lefebvre and Ottaviani are good Catholics. But for what fact or proposition do you hold the Conciliar “Popes” as heretics?
You say that Lefebvre and Ottaviani “are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors”. Ok. But, as you know, also Conciliar “Popes” say of themselves that “they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors”. By consequence, as you admit, the judgment about their status of heretics are personal until a pronunciation of the Church. Therefore, for what reason, according to you, are Conciliar “Popes” heretics although they affirm to be Catholics and true Popes?

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
As I have show to you, theologians (cf for example Palmieri) speak not only of the possession of the power until the end of the time, but also of the active exercise of this power until the end of time. Your Father X has the power but he does not exercise it.

Can you demonstrate from approved theology that a bishop loses jurisdiction due to a cause other than ones mentioned? (heresy, schism, apostasy, resignation, and transfer) As I stated, if a bishop were ill or imprisoned, and not actively engaged in his office, I am not aware of any theologian who states that he has lost jurisdiction due to this. In the same manner, if a bishop due to an unlawful resignation is not acting in his capacity as bishop, would he lose jurisdiction due to an error of fact? I have never seen such a concept.


This bishop hold his power of jurisdiction. But he does not exercise it. It suffice that you consider the distinction about “the power” and “the exercise of the power”. Well, your Father X does not exercise the power.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
To retain the Holy See as totally vacant without the intervention of the Church is, for me, extremely dangerous.


Why is this dangerous? There is nothing in this which contradicts the Faith. The length of interregnums has never been defined. Yes, this situation is new, but the existing theology can explain it.

Mike, what theologian does he teach that the Apostolic See is totally vacant without the intervention of the Church? Please, give me the quote.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, these (always valid) principles they do not take into account an important and desirable way out of the crisis. This way is contemplated by the Cassiciacum Thesis of Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers: if the materialiter Pope returned to profess integrally the Catholic Faith he would become Pope even formaliter and the Church would again have a true Pope.
Given that nothing is impossible with God, a election of a Pope in this disastrous crisis would be a way out very much more complicated.


Interestingly enough, for different reasons we agree on your first point. If Benedict (the current materialiter pope) for example were to convert, and return to his Catholic Faith, then I believe that the act of his being Catholic, and being recognized by the remaining Roman Clergy and hierarchy would cause him to become the pope by the very act of their acclamation of him, as he now meets criteria. He would however need to be consecrated as a bishop. On this point, if this is how the crisis will end, we may follow different roads to the same destination.
To you second point, I agree that any election by the Roman clergy and the hierarchy would be extremely complicated, and I do not think it is likely at all without God's intervention to bring it about.


You will admit that to achieve to an acclamation by Roman Clergy and hierarchy (and who has the right to establish who are members of the hierarchy and eventually the electors? And who has the right to call the Conclave?) is very much more complicated than to have a Pope already elected. Also because, there is not any principle in the name of which a member of the hierarchy is obliged to acclaim as Pope a simple man who has just converted.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, it seems to me that you do not answer to my question on visibility. Perhaps is my question not enough clear?


I believe I did answer the question. The visibility of the Church is guaranteed by the visible presence in the world of the bishops and the laity, the Shepherds and the Sheep. The Church is not a secret underground society, it is visibly present in the world. The Church is in crisis, and it is less visible than previously, due to the numbers of bishops, priests and laity, but it is still visible. It is possible to contact the bishops, but it may take some effort on your part.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
- In the case that you quote there was the Pope. In our case, the Pope there is not.
- The visibility of the Church is guaranteed by Catholic bishops if we can to know where they are. But if we can not, from what is guaranteed the visibility of the Church?


I am not sure that your statement, "if we can know where they are." is required. A hypothetical if I may to demonstrate a principle: there is an atomic war, and most of the world is destroyed, included most of the hierarchy, the priests and the pope. During this time, due to the world being brought back to a more primitive state, lacking governments, road systems, and communications, Catholics could not locate a bishop for a very long time, would the Church then be no longer visible to them?

The location of the bishops may at this point not be known to you, but they exist, and you know they exist, so the Church is visible. If you went and visited the names of the the remaining known bishops actually appointed by Pius XII, and secondly, went to visit all of the bishops appointed by anti-popes under the concept of supplied jurisdiction, then some or at least one would be Catholic. Their names are known, and their dioceses are known, so they are visible.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
I don’t know if I have understood your thought. Do you think that the visibility of the Church, under the aspect of the power of jurisdiction, is guaranteed nowadays by the bishops consecrated by Pius XII even if, being in communion with Ratzinger, they approve externally errors and heresies of Vatican II? Even if, being in communion with Ratzinger, they do not exercise actively – so elderly – their power of jurisdiction?


1. As we have discussed the communion with Ratzinger can mean two things. Either they are part of the program to destroy the Church, and are heretics, and then the answer is no, they lack jurisdiction due to being heretics. Secondly, if their adherence to Ratzinger is through ignorance the issues involved, and they still possess their Catholic Faith, then, yes, they still retain jurisdiction.
2. If you want to begin collecting data about whether they approve heresy or error, then that would be a worthwhile task, but as of now, I am not aware of any remaining Pius XII bishops believing in heresy or error. This is due to the fact that I do not at present know much about them at all, except their names, ordination and consecration dates, their dioceses, etc. It appears to me that you are making assumptions about them, but you have no data to back any of it up. If I am wrong about this, then one at a time, tell me who they are, what heresy or error they adhere to, and how you know this.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Ok, if they are identifiable, you can say to me where they are or you can indicate to me someone who know it.


This will not be easy but it is possible if you have the time and resources. Their names and diocese are published online, so you can start there for those that are known. There may be some that are not as easily known due to the persecution of the Church behind the lines of communism, (the Iron and Bamboo curtains). For starters, the bishops of Pius XII, then perhaps those of John XXIII. After that, look at all of the appointees of the anti-popes, who if they were Catholic would have been lawfully appointed though common error and supplied jurisdiction.

After you have assembled the names, then the question remains, if they have kept the Faith. For every one that you find that has kept the Faith, you have found another member of the hierarchy. We know they exist, and we know who they are, at least most of them, so they are visible.


Together we can prepare a letter for some of them, what do you think?

Mike wrote:
I am not sure that your statement, "if we can know where they are." is required. A hypothetical if I may to demonstrate a principle: there is an atomic war, and most of the world is destroyed, included most of the hierarchy, the priests and the pope. During this time, due to the world being brought back to a more primitive state, lacking governments, road systems, and communications, Catholics could not locate a bishop for a very long time, would the Church then be no longer visible to them?

This example is similar to that of the time in which Christians were persecuted. And I have already answer. I note that, in both cases, some “physic and external” factors (so to speak) make difficult to find a bishop. On the contrary, in our case, the cause of the difficulty does not consist in “physic and external” factors. There are not “physic and external” factors. Only it appears that in the world nobody professes the faith with authority.

A cordial greeting


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St. Justin wrote:

Quote:
Do you really believe that there are Bishops consecrated before 1968 with Ordinary Jursdiction.
That would be 54 years ago. That means they would have to have Consecrated at a very young age. Lets just say they were 30 at the time that would make them 84. Bishops retire for the most part at 75. To be 75 they would have to to be Consecrated at age 21 which is unheard of. The posiition that ther are still bishops from this time with Ordinary Jurisdiction is all but impossible. Not sure of the math but you get the point. To have Ordinary Jurisdiction you must be the Ordinary of a Diocese.

Just so I can understand it I always use the term successor of the Apostles to mean any Bishop with valid orders and Apostolic succession is any Valid Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction without which a Bishop cannot carry on the Mission of the Apostles


Sir,

Yes, I am sure there are bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction. I am absolutely certain that there are bishops with jurisdiction, but I do not restrict the date to 1968. We have much to thank John Lane for in researching the concept of supplied jurisdiction in the appointments by anti-popes, when they are almost universally accepted, and due to the common error of the act. The sources of these bishops may be:

1. Appointed by Pius XII (habitual jurisdiction of the Pope)
2. Appointed by John XXIII (possibly by habitual jurisdiction, but if not, then by supplied jurisdiction)
3. Appointed by Paul VI (possibly appointed by habitual jurisdiction at least until Dec. 7, 1965, but certainly by supplied jurisdiction). After Dec. 7, 1965, I have no doubt remaining that Paul VI could not have been pope. From Dec. 7, 1965 all bishops appointed by Paul VI who kept the Faith would have been lawful through supplied jurisdiction. (As an aside, for what its worth, I hold John XXIII's claim in extreme doubt, and for myself, I believe Paul VI was never a pope.)
4. The same principle applies to the bishops appointed by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Although bishops in the West, would have lacked validity due to the destruction of the rite, the Eastern Catholic bishops did not have that change.
5. Due to this, we may conclude that any eastern bishops who have the faith, and are recognized by common error of the faithful, may have habitual jurisdiction due to the act of their appointment being supplied.

In regards to all of the men mentioned here, the question which will determine if they are lawful members of the hierarchy is whether they have kept the Faith.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:07 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St. Justin wrote:
Quote:
Bishops retire for the most part at 75. To be 75 they would have to to be Consecrated at age 21 which is unheard of. The posiition that ther are still bishops from this time with Ordinary Jurisdiction is all but impossible.


Sir,

Thank for this question. Gabriele and I have just been discussing this and other points at length. This is from our discussion earlier in this thread:

3.
Quote:
Quote:
Mike wrote:
To your second point, when one renders his resignation, he must render it to one in authority to accept it. If the bishops submit their resignations to imposters, and the imposters accept the resignation, then that would mean that one in authority has not accepted it, and the person retains the post. He may think he has resigned, but he has not.


Gabriele:
Quote:
It is very strange what you say. Because you claim that these bishops continue to exercise the (apostolic) power of jurisdiction without knowing that they exercise it.


Mike:
Quote:
It may be strange, but it is true. Father X, pastor of St. Athanasius Church went to the chancery and submitted his resignation to imposter and heretical bishop Y, and this imposter told him, "your resignation has been approved." bishop Y then sends a heretic to replace him. At some later date, Father X becomes aware of the truth of the situation, and states, "bishop Y was never the ordinary of this diocese, he could not have accepted my resignation. I am still the lawful pastor of my church."

Do you disagree with Father X? Father X may have thought he was freed from his responsibility as pastor of his church, but, he was still the lawful pastor. The bishop was an imposter with no authority to accept his resignation, replace him, and in this case his replacement was a heretic, outside the Church with no claim to the office anyway.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Dear Gabriele,

Thank you for your comments. My answers below.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
I know that for you Conciliar “Popes” are heretics and that, on the contrary, Lefebvre and Ottaviani are good Catholics. But for what fact or proposition do you hold the Conciliar “Popes” as heretics?
You say that Lefebvre and Ottaviani “are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors”. Ok. But, as you know, also Conciliar “Popes” say of themselves that “they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors”. By consequence, as you admit, the judgment about their status of heretics are personal until a pronunciation of the Church. Therefore, for what reason, according to you, are Conciliar “Popes” heretics although they affirm to be Catholics and true Popes?


First, let me ask the question, why worry about Lefebvre and Ottaviani? Is it not obvious that they loved the Catholic Faith and every action they took was in Her defense?

About the post conciliar claimants, so much work has been done on this in the print and online world, that the case of heresy against these men is to me irrefutable. Interestingly enough, so much work has been done my those considering them lawful "popes," but either way their collected evidence is tremendous and invaluable. I really wish someone with the resources and time to devote to this could put all of this together into a multi-volume work. For me to go through this systematically, would take thousands if not tens of thousands of pages, so I will link you to some relevant works.

(This list is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but just from the top of my head. There are hundred of books, talks, articles, and videos, which collect evidence and data supporting the idea that the Vatican II papal claimants were deceivers, heretics, destroyers of the Faith, and enemies of the Church.)

For all Vatican II claimants:
Iota Unum, Romano Amerio, available from Angelus Press, http://angeluspress.org/Books/SSPX-Mode ... /Iota-Unum

For Paul VI (and this would include all successors to him as they all embrace and support Vatican II)
1. The Principle Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II, John Daly http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresies.html
2. I also recommend Archbishop Lefebvre and Vatican II[i], John Vennari, available from Olytn Library Services, http://www.oltyn.org/ (I recommend anything from Mr. Vennari, he is an excellent researcher, a deep thinker, and has put together some very powerful evidence against John XXIII to Benedict XVI. Mr. Vennari is not a sedevacantist, but his research is excellent.)


For John Paul II:
1. [i]The Heresy of John Paul II
: http://strobertbellarmine.net/wojtyla.htm
2. Pope John Paul Ii's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part 1: From the Second Vatican Council to the Papal Elections, Johannes Dormann. (all books by Fr. Dormann found on Amazon.com)
3. Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part 2/3 Johannes Dormann.
4. Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi. Part 2, Volume 2: Second Encyclical, Dives in Misericordia [Paperback] Johannes Dormann.
5. For more proof of heresy from actions, look up John Paul's interfaith activity by internet searches.
6. Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Code of Canon Law, http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... on_law.htm
7. 1986 declaration against Assisi Made by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... _mayer.htm
8. A Complete Case Against Karol Wojtyla's Claim to be Pope, http://strobertbellarmine.net/debate.html

Benedict XVI:
1. Dominus Iesus -- A Reaffirmation of Heresy, http://strobertbellarmine.net/dominusiesus.html
2. The fact the Benedict has continued to promote and endorse the Second Vatican Council
3. As with John Paul, search on the internet Benedict's interfaith/ecumenical activity.
4. October 2006 Debate - Benedict XVI is not the popeJohn Lane vs Robert Sungenis, moderated by Dr. Thomas Droleskey, http://strobertbellarmine.net/2006_deba ... te_01.html

The evidence can go on and on, but I am sure that if you go through these or some of these, you will see that the case of heresy is very strong. These men have not behaved as popes or Catholics. Their words and actions are not that of the Catholics through Church history. They have introduced new doctrines to the faithful on salvation, interfaith, religious liberty, and the nature of the Church itself.

They initially disguised their error with sophisticated language and by that confused the hierarchy, most priests and most laity. Catholics no longer knew what they must believe, as confusion was the new order of the day. This was universal, if you read the writings from the 1970's, from those who were keeping the faith, they were complaining and appealing to authority, but it fell on deaf ears. Only a heretic would tolerate such confusion and scandal among the laity about matters of Faith and morals. This act alone implicates him even beyond his other statements and actions.

I have spent considerable time trying to grasp the conditions of Catholics in the early part of the crisis. I do not think that Catholics can really grasp this crisis unless they first look at the initial phase of it, and the reaction of Catholics to it. If you have some time, read on the scandal of the Maynooth Pontifical Seminary in Ireland in the early 1970's written about by Hamish Frasier, (the dove man). The story that he writes about can be replicated over and over around the world. The good bishops, priests and theologians, were being overwhelmed, they appealed in vain to authority, but it went nowhere, so most retreated. Paul VI did nothing to defend the good, but universally tolerated evil.

John Lane has tried to demonstrate this sophisticated method on our other discussion thread. The former heretics never used this method. It is a new and much more sophisticated way of destroying the Faith of Catholics than has ever been seen in the history of the Church. Paul VI destroyed the faith by teaching heresy through ambiguity, which made it much harder to be detected with certainty by Catholics, his laws were non laws, allowing Catholics to wonder if they had to obey them or not, and he pretended to be bothered by the "auto-demolition" of the Church, while doing nothing to stop it. Statements such as his allowed Catholics to sympathize with him thinking he was on their side, but perhaps could not help them.

Paul VI complained about the state of the Church, but promulgated a protestant liturgy, allowed rampant confusion on the moral teaching of the church regarding marital issues, turned a deaf ear to good Catholics pleading for help, and appointed modernists everywhere throughout the Church. He tolerated evil everywhere, allowed evil books to flourish on matters of faith and morals, allowed the novus ordo itself to be further experimented with, and stood by and did nothing as hundreds of millions of Catholics abandoned their Faith, priests left by the thousands, and the religious orders were abandoned.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
This bishop hold his power of jurisdiction. But he does not exercise it. It suffice that you consider the distinction about “the power” and “the exercise of the power”. Well, your Father X does not exercise the power.

I will need to see statements from the theologians which state, "the failure to actively use the power of jurisdiction can lead to the loss of jurisdiction." I grasp what you are saying, but why is it relevant?

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Mike, what theologian does he teach that the Apostolic See is totally vacant without the intervention of the Church? Please, give me the quote.


The See is vacant every time a pope dies for starters. That much I think we agree on. It then seems to me that the point we are then discussing is whether a heretic automatically and prior to the judgment of the Church loses jurisdiction. St. Robert says:

Quote:
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

St. Robert here states that the sources of this teaching is the unanimous consent of the fathers, which means this is infallible and is certain doctrine. Heretics are outside the Church and lose all claim to jurisdiction.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
You will admit that to achieve to an acclamation by Roman Clergy and hierarchy (and who has the right to establish who are members of the hierarchy and eventually the electors? And who has the right to call the Conclave?) is very much more complicated than to have a Pope already elected. Also because, there is not any principle in the name of which a member of the hierarchy is obliged to acclaim as Pope a simple man who has just converted.


The members of the hierarchy are those bishops, successors of the Apostles, who have kept the Faith. If the method is election to resolve this crisis, the bishops themselves, in council will have to establish a method of determining who those bishops are, perhaps by a statement of Faith to rule out heretics.

Read the following from St. Robert in this example he gives:

Quote:
For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

Quote:
Together we can prepare a letter for some of them, what do you think?


I think that any idea of approaching these bishops must be very carefully thought out, if any good fruit is to come of it. I think the direct approach is the best, but even better by members of the clergy, and most especially by those who are holy. I think also, that prayer, fasting and penance should precede any discussions with these bishops.

If God wills for us to act to bring about the end of this crisis by appealing to the hierarchy, then we must pray to Him to show us the way, and make their hearts receptive to the true state of affairs in the Church.

I do not think letters from strangers will accomplish this, but what could bring this about is a massive Rosary campaign among all Catholics. Perhaps Bp. Fellay, who has influence over hundreds of thousands of Catholics could organize a new campaign for the goal of "ending the crisis in the Church, and raising up saints." which is a goal that all Catholics would agree on, whether they go to SSPX or not. Gabriele, my brother in Christ, what we need is saints, those extraordinary Catholics whose will is driven by God to bring about his will on earth. We need to pray for God to raise up saints!

In my opinion, if this crisis is to end, we all need to pray more, to do penance and beg God to help us. We are very late in the hour here. This October will be the 54th year since the death of Pope Pius XII. The Church has been reduced to a tiny remnant. If we want to see an end of this crisis, we need to see a massive outpouring of prayer from the Church, in the same spirit of the prayer that went into the victory of Lepanto.

A cordial greeting to you as well, and be assured of my prayers.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:15 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St. Justin wrote:
Do you really believe that there are Bishops consecrated before 1968 with Ordinary Jursdiction.
That would be 54 years ago. That means they would have to have Consecrated at a very young age. Lets just say they were 30 at the time that would make them 84. Bishops retire for the most part at 75. To be 75 they would have to to be Consecrated at age 21 which is unheard of. The posiition that ther are still bishops from this time with Ordinary Jurisdiction is all but impossible. Not sure of the math but you get the point. To have Ordinary Jurisdiction you must be the Ordinary of a Diocese.

1968 was 44 years ago.


Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Thanks, never was good at math. Just slip everything back 10 years.

Robert Bastaja wrote:
St. Justin wrote:
Do you really believe that there are Bishops consecrated before 1968 with Ordinary Jursdiction.
That would be 54 years ago. That means they would have to have Consecrated at a very young age. Lets just say they were 30 at the time that would make them 84. Bishops retire for the most part at 75. To be 75 they would have to to be Consecrated at age 21 which is unheard of. The posiition that ther are still bishops from this time with Ordinary Jurisdiction is all but impossible. Not sure of the math but you get the point. To have Ordinary Jurisdiction you must be the Ordinary of a Diocese.

1968 was 44 years ago.


Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Pax Christi,

If we are to go with the letter of the law, unless I am mistaken, retried bishops do not possess " ordinary jurisdiction".

I am sure though with the fact of their valid Episcopal Holy Orders, most of us would still refer to them in the Episcopal " SENSE"- successors of the apostles. I dont think any one would go out of thier way to say- "No this man is not a successor of the apostles any longer"........

Do we as traditional sede Catholic’s think the Holy Ghost in these dark days a hand in calling men to the priesthood and women to be brides of Christ? Or calling any of us to be Catholics?


In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Dear Vince,

Once sent, always sent, so yes, retired bishops are still successors of the Apostles. When we say "retired" we mean really retired - that is, bishops whose resignation was accepted by a lawful superior, in their case the Roman Pontiff.

But not yet sent, not yet sent, so bishops consecrated without a papal mandate, at least implicit, are not successors of the apostles. We've covered all this before, and the theology is not really disputable.

I don't understand your comment about the Holy Ghost. This is not about the goodness, rectitude, or even the holiness of the actions of the traditional bishops. It's about where the Catholic Church is, the visible organisation which has apostolic succession, which means bishops with jurisdiction (retired bishops are successors of the apostles, as stated above, but I can't see that they could constitute the Teaching Body of the Catholic Church, so there must be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
First, let me ask the question, why worry about Lefebvre and Ottaviani? Is it not obvious that they loved the Catholic Faith and every action they took was in Her defense?


Every action they took was in Her defense in their intentions, I agree. But per se, I do not agree.
See, for example, the engagement of Ottaviani to apply the documents of Vatican II:
« Puisque le Concile œcuménique Vatican II, qui vient de prendre une fin heureuse, a promulgué des documents très sages, soit en matière doctrinale, soit en matière disciplinaire, pour promouvoir efficacement la vie de l’Église, le grave devoir incombe au peuple de Dieu tout entier de s’appliquer, de tout son effort, à conduire à sa réalisation tout ce qui, sous l’influence du Saint-Esprit, a été solennellement proposé ou déclaré par cette très vaste Assemblée des évêques, sous la présidence du Souverain Pontife » (cardinal Ottaviani, Lettre aux Présidents des Conférences épiscopales au sujet de certains abus et d’opinions erronées dans l’interprétation de la doctrine du Concile Vatican II, 1966).

Mike wrote:
About the post conciliar claimants, so much work has been done on this in the print and online world, that the case of heresy against these men is to me irrefutable. Interestingly enough, so much work has been done my those considering them lawful "popes," but either way their collected evidence is tremendous and invaluable. I really wish someone with the resources and time to devote to this could put all of this together into a multi-volume work. For me to go through this systematically, would take thousands if not tens of thousands of pages, so I will link you to some relevant works.

(This list is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but just from the top of my head. There are hundred of books, talks, articles, and videos, which collect evidence and data supporting the idea that the Vatican II papal claimants were deceivers, heretics, destroyers of the Faith, and enemies of the Church.)

For all Vatican II claimants:
Iota Unum, Romano Amerio, available from Angelus Press, http://angeluspress.org/Books/SSPX-Mode ... /Iota-Unum

For Paul VI (and this would include all successors to him as they all embrace and support Vatican II)
1. The Principle Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II, John Daly http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresies.html
2. I also recommend Archbishop Lefebvre and Vatican II[i], John Vennari, available from Olytn Library Services, http://www.oltyn.org/ (I recommend anything from Mr. Vennari, he is an excellent researcher, a deep thinker, and has put together some very powerful evidence against John XXIII to Benedict XVI. Mr. Vennari is not a sedevacantist, but his research is excellent.)


For John Paul II:
1. [i]The Heresy of John Paul II
: http://strobertbellarmine.net/wojtyla.htm
2. Pope John Paul Ii's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part 1: From the Second Vatican Council to the Papal Elections, Johannes Dormann. (all books by Fr. Dormann found on Amazon.com)
3. Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part 2/3 Johannes Dormann.
4. Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi. Part 2, Volume 2: Second Encyclical, Dives in Misericordia [Paperback] Johannes Dormann.
5. For more proof of heresy from actions, look up John Paul's interfaith activity by internet searches.
6. Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Code of Canon Law, http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... on_law.htm
7. 1986 declaration against Assisi Made by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... _mayer.htm
8. A Complete Case Against Karol Wojtyla's Claim to be Pope, http://strobertbellarmine.net/debate.html

Benedict XVI:
1. Dominus Iesus -- A Reaffirmation of Heresy, http://strobertbellarmine.net/dominusiesus.html
2. The fact the Benedict has continued to promote and endorse the Second Vatican Council
3. As with John Paul, search on the internet Benedict's interfaith/ecumenical activity.
4. October 2006 Debate - Benedict XVI is not the popeJohn Lane vs Robert Sungenis, moderated by Dr. Thomas Droleskey, http://strobertbellarmine.net/2006_deba ... te_01.html

The evidence can go on and on, but I am sure that if you go through these or some of these, you will see that the case of heresy is very strong. These men have not behaved as popes or Catholics. Their words and actions are not that of the Catholics through Church history. They have introduced new doctrines to the faithful on salvation, interfaith, religious liberty, and the nature of the Church itself.

They initially disguised their error with sophisticated language and by that confused the hierarchy, most priests and most laity. Catholics no longer knew what they must believe, as confusion was the new order of the day. This was universal, if you read the writings from the 1970's, from those who were keeping the faith, they were complaining and appealing to authority, but it fell on deaf ears. Only a heretic would tolerate such confusion and scandal among the laity about matters of Faith and morals. This act alone implicates him even beyond his other statements and actions.

I have spent considerable time trying to grasp the conditions of Catholics in the early part of the crisis. I do not think that Catholics can really grasp this crisis unless they first look at the initial phase of it, and the reaction of Catholics to it. If you have some time, read on the scandal of the Maynooth Pontifical Seminary in Ireland in the early 1970's written about by Hamish Frasier, (the dove man). The story that he writes about can be replicated over and over around the world. The good bishops, priests and theologians, were being overwhelmed, they appealed in vain to authority, but it went nowhere, so most retreated. Paul VI did nothing to defend the good, but universally tolerated evil.


Thank you, dear Mike. I like that you know Romano Amerio. Some years ago I have read all what he has wrote about the crisis.
About all the reference that you have indicated for to prove heresy I can, eventually, say to you my opinion by private message, so that I avoid to annoy John repeating my opinion.

Mike wrote:
John Lane has tried to demonstrate this sophisticated method on our other discussion thread. The former heretics never used this method. It is a new and much more sophisticated way of destroying the Faith of Catholics than has ever been seen in the history of the Church. Paul VI destroyed the faith by teaching heresy through ambiguity, which made it much harder to be detected with certainty by Catholics, his laws were non laws, allowing Catholics to wonder if they had to obey them or not, and he pretended to be bothered by the "auto-demolition" of the Church, while doing nothing to stop it. Statements such as his allowed Catholics to sympathize with him thinking he was on their side, but perhaps could not help them.

Paul VI complained about the state of the Church, but promulgated a protestant liturgy, allowed rampant confusion on the moral teaching of the church regarding marital issues, turned a deaf ear to good Catholics pleading for help, and appointed modernists everywhere throughout the Church. He tolerated evil everywhere, allowed evil books to flourish on matters of faith and morals, allowed the novus ordo itself to be further experimented with, and stood by and did nothing as hundreds of millions of Catholics abandoned their Faith, priests left by the thousands, and the religious orders were abandoned.


About ambiguity, I agree. Ambiguity is not catholic. The same Ratzinger nowadays is a Master in matter of ambiguity. But – about me – it is dangerous to take ambiguity as a yardstick to measure whether one is or is not Pope.
With Vatican II, the episcopacy of the entire world has approved some doctrines, many of which erroneous. The “Church” taught these doctrines. If the consensus of theologians is binding, a fortiori it is the consensus of the episcopacy. As you can see, there is no need of a specific language, of specific procedures, of a particular expression for to bind. It is sufficient the consensus.

Mike wrote:
I will need to see statements from the theologians which state, "the failure to actively use the power of jurisdiction can lead to the loss of jurisdiction." I grasp what you are saying, but why is it relevant?


Sorry, dear Mike. Perhaps it is for my bad English that you do not understand. I am not saying that there is some authors who say: "the failure to actively use the power of jurisdiction can lead to the loss of jurisdiction". I say that there are authors (for example, Palmieri, see above) who affirm that the power of jurisdiction of the Pastors must to be actively exercised until the end of time, and not only merely possessed. Now, your Father X has got the power, but he does not exercised it. That’s it.

Mike wrote:
The See is vacant every time a pope dies for starters. That much I think we agree on. It then seems to me that the point we are then discussing is whether a heretic automatically and prior to the judgment of the Church loses jurisdiction. St. Robert says:

Quote:
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

St. Robert here states that the sources of this teaching is the unanimous consent of the fathers, which means this is infallible and is certain doctrine. Heretics are outside the Church and lose all claim to jurisdiction.


Mike, St. Bellarmine does not say that the See is totally vacant. To lose jurisdiction does not mean that the See is, automatically, totally vacant. When he speaks of heretic bishops, Bellarmine says implicitly that heretic bishops lose jurisdiction before the intervention of the Church (indeed, he says that the faithful must not listen to them) but they must to be deposed by the intervention of the Church. By consequence their sees are not totally vacant.
Also for Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers the lost of jurisdiction does not imply that the See is totally vacant. Indeed, the materialiter pope has not jurisdiction but he rests with the material possession of the See.

Mike wrote:
The members of the hierarchy are those bishops, successors of the Apostles, who have kept the Faith. If the method is election to resolve this crisis, the bishops themselves, in council will have to establish a method of determining who those bishops are, perhaps by a statement of Faith to rule out heretics.


Easy to say, much harder to do. This is, however, a solution very much more complicated than to have already a Pope.

Mike wrote:
I think that any idea of approaching these bishops must be very carefully thought out, if any good fruit is to come of it. I think the direct approach is the best, but even better by members of the clergy, and most especially by those who are holy. I think also, that prayer, fasting and penance should precede any discussions with these bishops.

If God wills for us to act to bring about the end of this crisis by appealing to the hierarchy, then we must pray to Him to show us the way, and make their hearts receptive to the true state of affairs in the Church.

I do not think letters from strangers will accomplish this, but what could bring this about is a massive Rosary campaign among all Catholics. Perhaps Bp. Fellay, who has influence over hundreds of thousands of Catholics could organize a new campaign for the goal of "ending the crisis in the Church, and raising up saints." which is a goal that all Catholics would agree on, whether they go to SSPX or not. Gabriele, my brother in Christ, what we need is saints, those extraordinary Catholics whose will is driven by God to bring about his will on earth. We need to pray for God to raise up saints!

In my opinion, if this crisis is to end, we all need to pray more, to do penance and beg God to help us. We are very late in the hour here. This October will be the 54th year since the death of Pope Pius XII. The Church has been reduced to a tiny remnant. If we want to see an end of this crisis, we need to see a massive outpouring of prayer from the Church, in the same spirit of the prayer that went into the victory of Lepanto.

Thank you, Mike. I agree about what you say on prayer.

Mike wrote:
A cordial greeting to you as well, and be assured of my prayers.


A cordial greeting, Mike. Also you are in my prayers.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
"With Vatican II, the episcopacy of the entire world has approved some doctrines, many of which erroneous. The “Church” taught these doctrines. If the consensus of theologians is binding, a fortiori it is the consensus of the episcopacy. As you can see, there is no need of a specific language, of specific procedures, of a particular expression for to bind. It is sufficient the consensus."

I think this is a common error, "that is that a consensus is binding" and "it is sufficient the consensus". In every matter that is to be taught as infallible or binding there must be a clear intention to make it so. Just to say 1,2,3, or however many Doctors of the the Church plus a majority of Bishops taught "so and so" does not make something binding. The Magisterium does not work that way.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St.Justin wrote:
I think this is a common error, "that is that a consensus is binding" and "it is sufficient the consensus". In every matter that is to be taught as infallible or binding there must be a clear intention to make it so. Just to say 1,2,3, or however many Doctors of the the Church plus a majority of Bishops taught "so and so" does not make something binding. The Magisterium does not work that way.


Dear St. Justin,
apart that there are various documents of the Magisterium that do not require any "intention to bind" for to bind fathful (for example the words of Leo XIII in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum: “As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true”), we must consider that the specific role of Magisterium is to certify that one doctrine belongs to the deposit of the Revelation. The source of the obligation is the revealed character of this doctrine. If the Church teaches that a doctrine belongs to the Revelation “it must be believed by every one as true” (as it says Pope Leo XIII). Now, at Vatican II various doctrines in matter of faith or moral were taught. So if we think that it was the Episcopacy to teach, we must believe.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:56 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear St. Justin,
apart that there are various documents of the Magisterium that do not require any "intention to bind" for to bind fathful (for example the words of Leo XIII in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum: “As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true”),


I don't believe this is Leo's point at all, but if you disagree, please quote a theologian who interprets his words in your way.

Gabriele wrote:
we must consider that the specific role of Magisterium is to certify that one doctrine belongs to the deposit of the Revelation. The source of the obligation is the revealed character of this doctrine.


This statement is false. There are two factors: The revelation of truth by God, and the authoritative proposing of this doctrine by the Church. The term "obligation" here is not univocal. All are obliged to accept what God reveals even if they do not know about the Church, the moment that they become convinced that God has indeed revealed it. This may occur when they read Holy Writ for themselves, for example. The obligation that the Church imposes is a universal one, of the nature of a law. Once promulgated, all (Christians) are presumed to know that the doctrine is revealed, and can be punished for not believing. The Church is not merely a witness - she authoritatively proposes, so she is an official witness and she makes laws, doctrinal laws.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Dear St. Justin,
apart that there are various documents of the Magisterium that do not require any "intention to bind" for to bind fathful (for example the words of Leo XIII in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum: “As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true”),


I don't believe this is Leo's point at all, but if you disagree, please quote a theologian who interprets his words in your way.


And what are they mean about you?

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
we must consider that the specific role of Magisterium is to certify that one doctrine belongs to the deposit of the Revelation. The source of the obligation is the revealed character of this doctrine.


This statement is false. There are two factors: The revelation of truth by God, and the authoritative proposing of this doctrine by the Church. The term "obligation" here is not univocal. All are obliged to accept what God reveals even if they do not know about the Church, the moment that they become convinced that God has indeed revealed it. This may occur when they read Holy Writ for themselves, for example. The obligation that the Church imposes is a universal one, of the nature of a law. Once promulgated, all (Christians) are presumed to know that the doctrine is revealed, and can be punished for not believing. The Church is not merely a witness - she authoritatively proposes, so she is an official witness and she makes laws, doctrinal laws.


Dear John, the "simple" unanimous consensus of the theologians is binding. And this one has not promulgation, nor connected sanctions, nor intention to bind. Why, according to you, on the contrary, is the unanimous consensus of the Episcopacy not binding?


Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, the "simple" unanimous consensus of the theologians is binding. And this one has not promulgation, nor connected sanctions, nor intention to bind. Why, according to you, on the contrary, is the unanimous consensus of the Episcopacy not binding?


As you can see below ther are all sorts of degrees of "binding". To which are you refering?

On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father
Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by
auditors of the Roman Congregations.

(a) Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et
Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith,
and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically
incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or
council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed,
to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing
iturgical and practical use and commendation.

(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with
Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical
faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed
automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this
sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.

(c) Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the
Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church
membership. May incur a canonical penalty.

(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

(e) Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely
revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.

(f) Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not
as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by
heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a
higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate
censure may be graver than "temerarious".

(g) Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is
derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who
has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since
it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such
a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely
weighty presumption.

(h) Theological Note: Safe.
Explanation: Affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations.
Example: That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after
Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks: Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally
required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal
authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.

(i) Theological Note: Very common/commoner.
Explanation: The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a
disputed subject.
Example: Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no
obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a
general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is
less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity
of theological schools.

(j) Theological Note: Probable.
Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds
of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.
Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not
receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more
probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good
reason.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, the "simple" unanimous consensus of the theologians is binding. And this one has not promulgation, nor connected sanctions, nor intention to bind.


Gabriele,

Please go back and re-read what you wrote, and what I replied. You asserted, "The source of the obligation is the revealed character of this doctrine." This is not accurate at all. I explained why.

Did you read the Wilhelm and Scannell section I linked to above? It's really very good. You'll even find some of what you will take as proof texts for your own view. :)

The consensus of the theologians referred to is their consensus that a) something is revealed, and b) that the Church teaches it as revealed. They are mere witnesses, not official teachers. Their consensus shows that the Church has taught this doctrine as revealed.

But you really are missing the point, which is the fundamental one that the Church teaches in a special capacity - i.e. authoritatively. She witnesses to the truth and at the same time she makes it law for the faithful.

Here's an excerpt from the link above (this part is dealing with the various forms of ex cathedra definition):

Quote:
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.


You will see very easily that the point I am emphasising is a crucial one for determining when a pope speaks infallibly. That is, is it clear he is making a law, or is he only admonishing or acting administratively?

The same thing is true, mutatis mutandis, for the whole episcopate. That is, it is in the nature of their official preaching to impose an obligation on their subjects to believe what is preached. That is what true preaching is. It is communicating some truth with the intention to make belief in it legally obligatory.

The whole problem of the Conciliar and post-Conciliar "magisterium" is that it does not speak with authority. Those men didn't and don't believe in authority, and they said so, and used language when "teaching" which witnessed to this lack of belief in authority. This casts doubt on the question of obligation, an essential factor in true teaching by the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Pax Christi !

John Lane posted :
Quote:
“Once sent, always sent, so yes, retired bishops are still successors of the Apostles. When we say "retired" we mean really retired - that is, bishops whose resignation was accepted by a lawful superior, in their case the Roman Pontiff.”


Are you basing this position on there not being a pope ? It is a conundrum, becuase all these Pope Pius Xiith, John 23rd retired bishops accept that a lawful superior granted their resignation, and they floated off into retirment, and thus no longer have ordinary jurisdiction. At least the behave as no longer knowing they have it.

Quote:
not yet sent, not yet sent, so bishops consecrated without a papal mandate, at least implicit, are not successors of the apostles. We've covered all this before, and the theology is not really disputable.”


Why the mention of the traditional bishops here?
Quote:
I don't understand your comment about the Holy Ghost. This is not about the goodness, rectitude, or even the holiness of the actions of the traditional bishops. It's about where the Catholic Church is, the visible organisation which has apostolic succession, which means bishops with jurisdiction (retired bishops are successors of the apostles, as stated above, but I can't see that they could constitute the Teaching Body of the Catholic Church, so there must be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction somewhere).


John- do you think that the traditional clergy ( most anyway) were called to that state in life by the Holy Ghost? Or are they following their own desire?

In Xto,


Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:41 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Dear Vince,

I am sure that the "respectable" clergy are following their consciences and have true vocations. But the whole point is that in each case we have to make a judgement, don't we?

We do not have the assurance of the Church that each and every priest or bishop has a true vocation, and has received the requisite training (in fact, we know that many of them didn't receive the requisite training, since they told us so themselves!), and most importantly was received into the ranks of the clergy by the public authority of the Church herself and given a mission.

That is what is lacking. And that is why we have to form our own judgements about each of them and assure ourselves that they are good priests or bishops whom we trust with our souls and those of our children.

It's a state of emergency. Somewhat organised chaos!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St.Justin wrote:
As you can see below ther are all sorts of degrees of "binding". To which are you refering?


It depends by the specific doctrine. The doctrine on religious freedom proposed by Vatican II probably may be classified under the letter "b" of Cartechini.

(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with
Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.


However, the classification can change from theologian to theologian.


Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, the "simple" unanimous consensus of the theologians is binding. And this one has not promulgation, nor connected sanctions, nor intention to bind.


Gabriele,

Please go back and re-read what you wrote, and what I replied. You asserted, "The source of the obligation is the revealed character of this doctrine." This is not accurate at all. I explained why.

Did you read the Wilhelm and Scannell section I linked to above? It's really very good. You'll even find some of what you will take as proof texts for your own view. :)

The consensus of the theologians referred to is their consensus that a) something is revealed, and b) that the Church teaches it as revealed. They are mere witnesses, not official teachers. Their consensus shows that the Church has taught this doctrine as revealed.


No, John. See for example the doctrine discussed in this thread on "Pastors and doctors" until the end of the time. You have posted the Magisterium of Vatican I which is interpretable in several ways. It is the consensus of the theologians that makes us aware that the "Pastors" must to exist IN ACT until the end of the time. And this consensus of the theologians is binding even if the Church has not ruled on this specific point. One of the reasons for which the consensus of the theologians is binding is that it constitues a sign of the passive infallibility (infallibility in credendo) of the Church.

John Lane wrote:
But you really are missing the point, which is the fundamental one that the Church teaches in a special capacity - i.e. authoritatively. She witnesses to the truth and at the same time she makes it law for the faithful.

Here's an excerpt from the link above (this part is dealing with the various forms of ex cathedra definition):

Quote:
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.


You will see very easily that the point I am emphasising is a crucial one for determining when a pope speaks infallibly. That is, is it clear he is making a law, or is he only admonishing or acting administratively?


Dear John, theologians discuss on the classification of each document. And their opinions are differents on many aspects. But there is no doubt that when the Episcopacy testify in any form that one thing is revealed or connected to the revelation we must believe, ipso facto. One example will be usefull for to make more clear what I am saying.
In the Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950), Pius XII says:
"This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly".

The infallibility, and by consequence the binding character, of one doctrine does not depend by her exposition by the Church in a juridical form.

John Lane wrote:
The same thing is true, mutatis mutandis, for the whole episcopate. That is, it is in the nature of their official preaching to impose an obligation on their subjects to believe what is preached. That is what true preaching is. It is communicating some truth with the intention to make belief in it legally obligatory.

The whole problem of the Conciliar and post-Conciliar "magisterium" is that it does not speak with authority. Those men didn't and don't believe in authority, and they said so, and used language when "teaching" which witnessed to this lack of belief in authority. This casts doubt on the question of obligation, an essential factor in true teaching by the Church.


I disagree. Try to see the issue in this way: at Vatican II the Episcopacy has preached the doctrine on religious freedom saying that this doctrine is connected to the Revelation. How is it possible that the Episcopacy says that a doctrine is connected to the Revelation but it is not necessary to believe in it?.


Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:20 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
No, John. See for example the doctrine discussed in this thread on "Pastors and doctors" until the end of the time. You have posted the Magisterium of Vatican I which is interpretable in several ways. It is the consensus of the theologians that makes us aware that the "Pastors" must to exist IN ACT until the end of the time. And this consensus of the theologians is binding even if the Church has not ruled on this specific point.


The theologians don't teach with the authority of the Church, they witness to her teaching, which they by their expertise know better than anybody else.

The fact that intention to define is an essential factor in a definition is not disputable, I think. Do you grant that?

Wilhelm and Scannell:
Quote:
III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so.


Gabriele wrote:
One of the reasons for which the consensus of the theologians is binding is that it constitues a sign of the passive infallibility (infallibility in credendo) of the Church.


Gabriele, passive infallibility is an effect of active infallibility. If the Church believes something, it is, and can only be, because the Church Teaching has taught it.

Theologians are only witnesses, not authoritative teachers. Do I need to quote a text or two to prove this? If I do, why am I having to prove such basic truths?

Quote:
III. The fact that all the members of the Church actually agree in one Faith is the best proof of the efficiency of the Catholic Rule of Faith. This universality is not the Rule of Faith itself but rather its effect. Individual members are indeed bound to conform their belief to that of the whole community, but this universal belief is produced by the action of the Teaching Apostolate, the members of which are in their turn subject to their Chief.



Gabriele wrote:
The infallibility, and by consequence the binding character, of one doctrine does not depend by her exposition by the Church in a juridical form.

Well I have made the necessary distinctions, but you ignored them. I agree that the ordinary teaching activity does not need to take a "juridical" form in order for it to be binding. This is implicit. But we are not discussing a normal act of the Church Teaching. We are talking about a council which was labelled "pastoral" and which was run by men who declared their liberalism by word and action, so that when they issued texts it was not at all clear that these were authoritative acts of teaching by the Church.

If a man seriously uses the matter and form of a sacrament he is presumed to intend to do as the Church does, and validity is presumed. But if he speaks or acts in ways which undermine this presumption, then validity is no longer presumed. These men acted and spoke in ways which directly contradicted the Church's own understanding of what "teaching" actually is. You cannot apply the principles which apply to the teaching activity of the Catholic Church indiscriminately, ignoring these data.

Gabriele wrote:
I disagree. Try to see the issue in this way: at Vatican II the Episcopacy has preached the doctrine on religious freedom saying that this doctrine is connected to the Revelation. How is it possible that the Episcopacy says that a doctrine is connected to the Revelation but it is not necessary to believe in it?.


Good question, but you won't answer it - I asked you above what was lacking in Vatican II which prevented it being a true General Council, and you refused to answer, and accused me of trying to change the subject!

There are two potential factors, other than the non-papacy of Paul VI, which prevent this doctrine from being considered infallibly proposed by the ordinary, universal, magisterium. 1. It isn't clear, and it is impossible that we are bound to believe something which is objectively unclear. 2. It was presented in a novel formulation, which carefully omitted the usual manner of presentation of doctrine by the Catholic Church, as I've already explained several times.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
The theologians don't teach with the authority of the Church, they witness to her teaching, which they by their expertise know better than anybody else.

I know.
John Lane wrote:
The fact that intention to define is an essential factor in a definition is not disputable, I think. Do you grant that?

According to Fr. Kleutgen, of the Deputation of the Faith at Vatican I, we must adhere to what the Church teaches even if there is not a definition.
“On doit la soumission de l’esprit à l’Eglise qui définit, même si elle n’ajoute aucun précepte. Puisqu’en effet Dieu nous a donné l’Eglise comme Mère et Maîtresse pour tout ce qui concerne la religion et la piété, nous sommes tenus de l’écouter quand elle enseigne. C’est pourquoi, si la pensée et la doctrine de toute l’Eglise apparaît, nous sommes tenus d’y adhérer, même s’il n’y a pas de définition: combien plus donc si cette pensée et cette doctrine nous apparaissent par une définition publique?” (P. KLEUTGEN, au Concile Vatican I, Mansi 53, 330)
In every case, in Dignitatis Humanae there is a clear definition of the doctrine on religious liberty.
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele, passive infallibility is an effect of active infallibility. If the Church believes something, it is, and can only be, because the Church Teaching has taught it.

I know that passive infallibility is an effect of active infallibility. Nevertheless, there are cases in which the consensus of the theologians concerns a point of doctrine not even specified by the Church. For example, among several possible interpretations of a step of the Magisterium, the consensus of theologians may fall upon one of them. And we are bind to this consensus.
John Lane wrote:
Theologians are only witnesses, not authoritative teachers. Do I need to quote a text or two to prove this? If I do, why am I having to prove such basic truths?

There’s no need, John.
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
The infallibility, and by consequence the binding character, of one doctrine does not depend by her exposition by the Church in a juridical form.

Well I have made the necessary distinctions, but you ignored them. I agree that the ordinary teaching activity does not need to take a "juridical" form in order for it to be binding. This is implicit. But we are not discussing a normal act of the Church Teaching. We are talking about a council which was labelled "pastoral" and which was run by men who declared their liberalism by word and action, so that when they issued texts it was not at all clear that these were authoritative acts of teaching by the Church.

Dear John, as it says Pius XII: "Christ presides and guide the Councils of the Church” (Mystici Corporis).
You have affirmed: “I agree that the ordinary teaching activity does not need to take a "juridical" form in order for it to be binding”. Then, consider the Vatican II as ordinary teaching!
Note that even if we want to consider the Vatican II as extraordinary teaching, one second after the end of the Council we have an ordinary teaching, and the problem recurs.
Collected or dispersed, it is always the whole Episcopate which is expressed.
John Lane wrote:
If a man seriously uses the matter and form of a sacrament he is presumed to intend to do as the Church does, and validity is presumed. But if he speaks or acts in ways which undermine this presumption, then validity is no longer presumed. These men acted and spoke in ways which directly contradicted the Church's own understanding of what "teaching" actually is. You cannot apply the principles which apply to the teaching activity of the Catholic Church indiscriminately, ignoring these data.

I know you will not share, but, in my humble opinion, you have a view of the reality too rigid and legalistic. Go to the substance of things! At Vatican II the Church has expressed some doctrines in matter of faith and moral to all the world. And the entire world has understood this very fact. As Catholics, when we know that the Church is expressed, we are required to join (Kleutgen).
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
I disagree. Try to see the issue in this way: at Vatican II the Episcopacy has preached the doctrine on religious freedom saying that this doctrine is connected to the Revelation. How is it possible that the Episcopacy says that a doctrine is connected to the Revelation but it is not necessary to believe in it?.

Good question, but you won't answer it - I asked you above what was lacking in Vatican II which prevented it being a true General Council, and you refused to answer, and accused me of trying to change the subject!

Dear John, I’m sorry if I have not given you my opinion on the nature of Vatican II, but I need of time for to write in English, and I wanted to go immediately to the basic question. I share the opinion of those who retain that the Magisterium of a Council should be part of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church in force of the particular occasion in which it is expressed. But this has not many importance. There are authors that intend the term “extraordinary” Magisterium with reference to the special occasion (particularly solemn) in which it is expressed and they connect the term to the Ecumenical Council. Other authors intend the term “extraordinary” Magisterium with reference to the concrete expressions (formal and solemn) used in the act of Magisterium.
If Paul VI had been a true Pope the Vatican II would been a true Council. The fact that Vatican II was presented as ‘pastoral’ does not mean nothing in terms of infallibility. Trent was pastoral and everyone agrees that it was infallible. The point is another one: that is, if it has been the Church to teach (in this case we must believe to the teachings which concern faith or moral) or if it has not been the Church (in this case we must not believe).
John Lane wrote:
There are two potential factors, other than the non-papacy of Paul VI, which prevent this doctrine from being considered infallibly proposed by the ordinary, universal, magisterium. 1. It isn't clear, and it is impossible that we are bound to believe something which is objectively unclear.

The doctrine on religious freedom is clear. So much so that we can peacefully say, in application of the principle of non-contradiction, that it is a false doctrine, a doctrine already condemned by the Church. For the rest, Lefebvre fought it all his life. Evidently he has not fought something unknown.
John Lane wrote:
2. It was presented in a novel formulation, which carefully omitted the usual manner of presentation of doctrine by the Catholic Church, as I've already explained several times.


The “formulation”, the “manner of presentation” has not importance. You has already read what Kleutgen said.

Bp. Martin of the Deputation of the Faith at Vatican I said :

« Il faut croire toutes les choses que Dieu a révélées et nous propose de croire, par l'intermédiaire de l'Église, et ce QUEL QUE SOIT LE MODE D'EXPRESSION qu'elle choisisse (quomodocumque). Par cette doctrine est exclue l'erreur de ceux qui veulent qu’il faille seulement croire de foi divine les articles de foi formellement définis, et qui par conséquent, s'efforcent de réduire quasiment au minimum la somme des vérités à croire ».

And the cardinal Billot says:

« Tout ce qui est prêché dans l’Église entière comme étant divinement révélé appartient par ce fait même, et indépendamment de toute définition conciliaire ou pontificale à la foi catholique – à laquelle s’oppose l’hérésie ».

I understand that our positions on the point are very distant.

A cordial greeting


Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Pax Christi !

John Lane posted
Quote:
I am sure that the "respectable" clergy are following their consciences and have true vocations. But the whole point is that in each case we have to make a judgement, don't we?

We do not have the assurance of the Church that each and every priest or bishop has a true vocation, and has received the requisite training (in fact, we know that many of them didn't receive the requisite training, since they told us so themselves!), and most importantly was received into the ranks of the clergy by the public authority of the Church herself and given a mission.



John- glad you admit these men ( not sent)at least do have a role called by our Lord to continue the true Faith and Sacraments. However, I think you might have a naive view regarding those " sent" prior to Vatican II. There is a long history of ill formed men being " sent" by the church as priests, bishops and even popes.

The human condition, and at times the churchs miss-managed seminaries can get in the way. One large example- Martin Luther


In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:37 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
John- glad you admit


Vince, it's only my judgement, and who am I?

Vince Sheridan wrote:
However, I think you might have a naive view regarding those " sent" prior to Vatican II. There is a long history of ill formed men being " sent" by the church as priests, bishops and even popes.


This misses the point. A particular vigilante might well happen to be well-trained, disciplined, morally upright, and virtually infallible, and any given Police Officer incompetent, insubordinate, corrupt, and lazy, yet nobody would think this likely to be true on average.

We know from experience that the typical Police Officer is worthy of respect, precisely because he is governed by public authority, which takes care to train him, discipline him, etc.

Further, the populace have to obey the proper orders of a Police Officer and not those of the vigilante.

The traditional clergy act out of charity. A properly "sent" cleric acts out of justice. We are obliged to obey canonically regular clergy, we have no such obligation to "traditional" clergy. The fact that most people have no notion of this doesn't make it any less true.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Oh, and Vince, my good friend, if something about these statements disturbs you, please say what it is, frankly, so that I can answer it. As it is, I can only say what I think, based upon the teaching of the Catholic Church as found in her approved writings.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Pax Christi !

Quote:
Further, the populace have to obey the proper orders of a Police Officer and not those of the vigilante.



John- dear brother in Christ, you have not offended me in any way. It appears like me, given your recent comments, we agree that the state of the mystical body is indeed currently " a mystery", and to quote you further the situation is indeed " knotty".

The analogy of the police and vigilantes does not appear to fit, unlike traditional clergy, vigilantes do not wear police uniforms and carry badges. As of course the traditional clergy wear all the trappings.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:12 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
The analogy of the police and vigilantes does not appear to fit, unlike traditional clergy, vigilantes do not wear police uniforms and carry badges. As of course the traditional clergy wear all the trappings.


Vince, do you think that improves the situation, or makes it more confusing?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
From the recent Bellamine Forums thread, Laymen who are elected to the Papacy:
John Lane wrote:
Just came across this when reading about infallibility.

Quote:
The members of, or participants in, an ecumenical council are primarily the bishops - all bishops who possess actual jurisdiction, even though they may not yet be consecrated. For they are all successors of the Apostles, and as such, iure divino, bearers of the ecclesiastical teaching office.


Brunsmann-Preuss, Vol. IV, p. 84.

This is new to me. I'd been under the impression that a valid episcopal consecration was one, undisputed, requirement for a person to be considered an Apostolic Successor, and that the possession of jurisdiction was the only element being disputed today. This quote seems to flip that whole notion around, making valid espiscopal orders not absolutely necessary for Apostolicity, and the possession of actual jurisdiction a sufficient qualifier by itself.

I had in the past wondered whether Pope Pius III (who Cristian mentioned in the the thread referenced above) would have been considered an Apostolic Successor during the time he was a bishop of a see without having priestly or episcopal orders. I guess this answers that.


Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
It has been awhile but the arguments are still the same.

If one wishes to teach something binding how is one to know they are bound by it if it is not made absolutely clear. That is why the Church makes it absolutely clear that for something to be binding it must be clear to all that is the case.

One quick question. Where did the statement come from that says Trent was pastoral council?


Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Joe Cupertino wrote:
From the recent Bellamine Forums thread, Laymen who are elected to the Papacy:
John Lane wrote:
Just came across this when reading about infallibility.

Quote:
The members of, or participants in, an ecumenical council are primarily the bishops - all bishops who possess actual jurisdiction, even though they may not yet be consecrated. For they are all successors of the Apostles, and as such, iure divino, bearers of the ecclesiastical teaching office.


Brunsmann-Preuss, Vol. IV, p. 84.

This is new to me. I'd been under the impression that a valid episcopal consecration was one, undisputed, requirement for a person to be considered an Apostolic Successor, and that the possession of jurisdiction was the only element being disputed today. This quote seems to flip that whole notion around, making valid espiscopal orders not absolutely necessary for Apostolicity, and the possession of actual jurisdiction a sufficient qualifier by itself.

I had in the past wondered whether Pope Pius III (who Cristian mentioned in the the thread referenced above) would have been considered an Apostolic Successor during the time he was a bishop of a see without having priestly or episcopal orders. I guess this answers that.


Jurisdiction
The Church's pastors govern and direct the flock committed to them in virtue of jurisdiction conferred upon them by Christ. The authority of jurisdiction differs essentially from the authority to teach. The two powers are concerned with different objects. The right to teach is concerned solely with the manifestation of the revealed doctrine; the object of the power of jurisdiction is to establish and enforce such laws and regulations as are necessary to the well-being of the Church. Further, the right of the Church to teach extends to the whole world: The jurisdiction of her rulers extends to her members alone (1 Corinthians 5:12). Christ's words to St. Peter, "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven", distinctly express the gift of jurisdiction. Supreme authority over a body carries with it the right to govern and direct. The three elements which go to constitute jurisdiction — legislative power, judicial power, and coercive power — are, moreover, all implied in Christ's directions to the Apostles (Matthew 18). Not merely are they instructed to impose obligations and to settle disputes; but they may even inflict the extremest ecclesiastical penalty — that of exclusion from membership in Christ.


Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Hi St. Justin, I apologize, but I don't quite see the relevance of your posts to my post about episcopal consecration not being absolutely necessary for one to be an Apostolic Successor.


Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St. Justin, now I see that your first post was referring to other things said previously in this thread. However, I'm still having a hard time seeing the point that is to be taken from your second post, in regards to mine.

I have to say that I didn't reread this thread before I posted in it initially today. I just remembered that this thread title existed and thought it would be the appropriate place to post my thoughts on the necessary elements of an Apostolic Successor. It's likely that my initial post, though relevant to the title of the thread, departs from the actual discussion in the thread, or at least where it left off.


Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Joe Cupertino wrote:
St. Justin, now I see that your first post was referring to other things said previously in this thread. However, I'm still having a hard time seeing the point that is to be taken from your second post, in regards to mine.

I have to say that I didn't reread this thread before I posted in it initially today. I just remembered that this thread title existed and thought it would be the appropriate place to post my thoughts on the necessary elements of an Apostolic Successor. It's likely that my initial post, though relevant to the title of the thread, departs from the actual discussion in the thread, or at least where it left off.


I was just making the point that Abbotts have Ordinary Jurisdiction but are not considered to have Apostolic Succession though they have all the power of a Bishop.


Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:55 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St.Justin wrote:
I was just making the point that Abbotts have Ordinary Jurisdiction but are not considered to have Apostolic Succession though they have all the power of a Bishop.


Sorry mate, where were Abbots mentioned in your posts?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
I was just making the point that Abbotts have Ordinary Jurisdiction but are not considered to have Apostolic Succession though they have all the power of a Bishop.


Sorry mate, where were Abbots mentioned in your posts?


It didn't! I just posted the thing about Abbotts to make the point that
Apostolic Succession requires Orders and Ordinary Jurisdiction.

It seemed to be implied earlier that both were not required. If I misunderstood so be it but what I posted is correct..


Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
St.Justin wrote:
Apostolic Succession requires Orders and Ordinary Jurisdiction.


No, it doesn't. That's the point we've made for years, and that the theologians are clear about, and which people don't seem to want to believe. :)

From the example given by Cristian of Pius III it would seem that the exercise of Orders by a bishop can be by way of delegation. So, Pius III provided for his diocese when he was bishop by ensuring that a man with episcopal orders (an auxiliary) was always available.

As for Abbots, only those known as "nullius" have ordinary jurisdiction, and while I agree it doesn't seem customary to refer to them as Successors of the Apostles, I am not at all clear that they are not in fact Successors of the Apostles, if that makes sense. They are, it must be said, a bit of a strange beast. They have ordinary jurisdiction over a geographic territory which includes the laity, and they have all of the essential rights and duties of bishops, so they exercise the threefold offices of Christ, the priesthood, the teaching office, and the ruling office. It may not be customary to refer to them as Successors of the Apostles since their primary function is to govern a monastery, a house of consecrated religious, but in essence I do not see why they are not so considered, given their ordinary jurisdiction over what is a diocese by another name. Do you have a source that deals with the question explicitly? I can't find one. Not that it's a material question, you just piqued my curiosity. :)

By the way, Abotts Nullius are pretty rare, and there are none in the USA or Great Britain, as far as I know, but we have one here in Western Australia (New Norcia) as a result of a mini-schism and other carryings on in the early days of the colony. Look up Bishop Brady of Perth, if you're interested in a bit of almost modern shenanigans in Church history. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
They are, it must be said, a bit of a strange beast.


They really are! :D

Quote:
in essence I do not see why they are not so considered, given their ordinary jurisdiction over what is a diocese by another name.


Actually canon 215.2 calls the abbey or prelacy nullius a diocese.

Quote:
§2. In iure nomine dioecesis venit quoque abbatia vel praelatura nullius; et nomine Episcopi, Abbas vel Praelatus nullius, nisi ex natura rei vel sermonis contextu aliud constet.


Quote:
Do you have a source that deals with the question explicitly? I can't find one. Not that it's a material question, you just piqued my curiosity. :)


What about canons 319-326 :D

Quote:
By the way, Abotts Nullius are pretty rare, and there are none in the USA or Great Britain, as far as I know, but we have one here in Western Australia (New Norcia) as a result of a mini-schism and other carryings on in the early days of the colony. Look up Bishop Brady of Perth, if you're interested in a bit of almost modern shenanigans in Church history. :)


According one of the commentaries I´ve, there were just 22 in the world in 1959.

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
Apostolic Succession requires Orders and Ordinary Jurisdiction.


No, it doesn't. That's the point we've made for years, and that the theologians are clear about, and which people don't seem to want to believe. :)

From the example given by Cristian of Pius III it would seem that the exercise of Orders by a bishop can be by way of delegation. So, Pius III provided for his diocese when he was bishop by ensuring that a man with episcopal orders (an auxiliary) was always available.

As for Abbots, only those known as "nullius" have ordinary jurisdiction, and while I agree it doesn't seem customary to refer to them as Successors of the Apostles, I am not at all clear that they are not in fact Successors of the Apostles, if that makes sense. They are, it must be said, a bit of a strange beast. They have ordinary jurisdiction over a geographic territory which includes the laity, and they have all of the essential rights and duties of bishops, so they exercise the threefold offices of Christ, the priesthood, the teaching office, and the ruling office. It may not be customary to refer to them as Successors of the Apostles since their primary function is to govern a monastery, a house of consecrated religious, but in essence I do not see why they are not so considered, given their ordinary jurisdiction over what is a diocese by another name. Do you have a source that deals with the question explicitly? I can't find one. Not that it's a material question, you just piqued my curiosity. :)

By the way, Abotts Nullius are pretty rare, and there are none in the USA or Great Britain, as far as I know, but we have one here in Western Australia (New Norcia) as a result of a mini-schism and other carryings on in the early days of the colony. Look up Bishop Brady of Perth, if you're interested in a bit of almost modern shenanigans in Church history. :)



I too am having trouble finding something concrete on the subject. I would say that your statement "so they exercise the threefold offices of Christ, the priesthood, the teaching office, and the ruling office" is not correct in the sense necessary for this discussion. Authority to "teach" in a universal sense applies only to a Bishop. Like wise If not a Bishop a man does not have the fullness of Orders and for sure not in the same sense as an Apostle does. So the only thing he can have in an Apostolic sense would be Ordinary Jurisdiction. That is how I understand it. So I am guessing somethig is missing from the understanding of the quotes, which I will have to look up.


Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Thanks Cristian. Yes, canon 215 has this: "In law, the term 'diocese' refers also to abbeys or prelatures nullius, unless the nature of things or the context show the contrary." So that's utterly clear. Well spotted! :)

Canon 329 says that, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and are placed by Divine institution over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. ..."

So that would exclude Abbots nullius being referred to by the title, Successors of the Apostles. :)

I guess it's one of those wrinkles in terminology that arises from the development of things over time.

So a Successor of the Apostles, properly speaking, is a man who rules a diocese, but not an Abbey nullius, whether he has received episcopal consecration or not.

I have to say, reviewing these things is a great reminder of how completely crazy it is for anybody to refer to the traditionalist bishops as Successors of the Apostles. The one thing absolutely necessary to that title is ordinary jurisdiction, and that's the one thing they most definitely don't have!

St. Justin, you wrote, "So the only thing he can have in an Apostolic sense would be Ordinary Jurisdiction." I know you were referring to Abbots, but just for clarity ordinary jurisdiction includes or at least is necessarily concomitant with the authority to teach in the same territory, and is all that is absolutely required for a man to be a successor of the Apostles. As I said above, it is obviously perfectly possible for the office of sanctifying to be exercised by delegation. When one thinks about it, most of the work of offering Holy Mass and confecting the sacraments is done by delegation (to the diocesan clergy) anyway, so in that sense it isn't even abnormal.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Thanks Cristian. Yes, canon 215 has this: "In law, the term 'diocese' refers also to abbeys or prelatures nullius, unless the nature of things or the context show the contrary." So that's utterly clear. Well spotted! :)

Canon 329 says that, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and are placed by Divine institution over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. ..."

So that would exclude Abbots nullius being referred to by the title, Successors of the Apostles. :)

I guess it's one of those wrinkles in terminology that arises from the development of things over time.

So a Successor of the Apostles, properly speaking, is a man who rules a diocese, but not an Abbey nullius, whether he has received episcopal consecration or not.


But I still don´t understand, does not an Abbey nullius rule a "diocese"?

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
have to say, reviewing these things is a great reminder of how completely crazy it is for anybody to refer to the traditionalist bishops as Successors of the Apostles. The one thing absolutely necessary to that title is ordinary jurisdiction, and that's the one thing they most definitely don't have!


This statement was part of the original preparatory schema on the Church, composed, I assume by traditional theologians:

"Although ordination to the highest level of the Priesthood, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices of teaching and governing which constitute jurisdiction,7 nevertheless, Bishops do not receive the exercise of jurisdiction from their sacred ordination itself, but in virtue of a mission..." Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. IV "Residential Bishops," para. 14.

Note 7 reads: "See the Preface for the Consecration of a Bishop."

It appears from this statement that ordinary jurisdiction is received at ordination, but cannot be exercised without a "mission" except of course in exigent circumstances.


Attachments:
church schema.pdf [664.51 KiB]
Downloaded 1023 times
Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:52 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Caminus wrote:
This statement was part of the original preparatory schema on the Church, composed, I assume by traditional theologians:

"Although ordination to the highest level of the Priesthood, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices of teaching and governing which constitute jurisdiction,7 nevertheless, Bishops do not receive the exercise of jurisdiction from their sacred ordination itself, but in virtue of a mission..." Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. IV "Residential Bishops," para. 14.

Note 7 reads: "See the Preface for the Consecration of a Bishop."

It appears from this statement that ordinary jurisdiction is received at ordination, but cannot be exercised without a "mission" except of course in exigent circumstances.


No, I think it's typical of a draft, unclear. I don't think you could build anything on that, Caminus. Consider that the mission is what assigns a flock to a bishop, upon which he exercises jurisdiction. What does it mean to say he has jurisdiction but no flock? The two are correlatives - the one exists when the other does. Jurisdiction is a relation (Latin: Relatio - cf. Aristotle and St. Thomas on the categories). No relation exists if one of the terms does not exist. It's like saying somebody is a father but has no children yet. No, he isn't a father. This is a close analogy, an identical relatio (i.e. father-son) to that which we refer to as jurisdiction.

Wernz-Vidal: "…jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Caminus wrote:
This statement was part of the original preparatory schema on the Church, composed, I assume by traditional theologians:

"Although ordination to the highest level of the Priesthood, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices of teaching and governing which constitute jurisdiction,7 nevertheless, Bishops do not receive the exercise of jurisdiction from their sacred ordination itself, but in virtue of a mission..." Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. IV "Residential Bishops," para. 14.

Note 7 reads: "See the Preface for the Consecration of a Bishop."

It appears from this statement that ordinary jurisdiction is received at ordination, but cannot be exercised without a "mission" except of course in exigent circumstances.


No, I think it's typical of a draft, unclear. I don't think you could build anything on that, Caminus. Consider that the mission is what assigns a flock to a bishop, upon which he exercises jurisdiction. What does it mean to say he has jurisdiction but no flock? The two are correlatives - the one exists when the other does. Jurisdiction is a relation (Latin: Relatio - cf. Aristotle and St. Thomas on the categories). No relation exists if one of the terms does not exist. It's like saying somebody is a father but has no children yet. No, he isn't a father. This is a close analogy, an identical relatio (i.e. father-son) to that which we refer to as jurisdiction.

Wernz-Vidal: "…jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship."


Your accounting for all the elements of the question strikes me as inadequate. Aside from the author's particular opinions concerning other matter, consider the following:

Quote:
“[O]n the occasion of the preparation for the First Vatican Council when a solution had to be presented to the question of the right of titular bishops to participate in the Council.
In the ninth meeting of the directive Congregation on May 17, 1868, Monsignor Angelini, the recorder, among other proposals made the following:
‘The reasoning behind the opposite opinion is based completely upon the power of jurisdiction. Now the simply titular bishops have no effective and actual jurisdiction. Hence they conclude that they lack the basis on which the right to vote rests.
‘Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop acquires in the act of, and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes a member of the episcopal body… Such is the reasoning of Bolgeni, Cappellari who was afterwards Gregory XVI of holy memory, Phillips, and others.’”

“In the same Congregation’s meeting of March 14, 1869, the following is stated:
‘that when the reply distinguishing habitual from actual jurisdiction is left out by otherwise eminent and serious authors in response to the objection usually advanced in opposition and drawn from the fact that titular bishops lack jurisdiction, there is another solid distinction between the particular jurisdiction over a given diocese, which the titular bishops cannot exercise and the general and universal jurisdiction acquired in virtue of the same ordination and common to all bishops. This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church… In view of all these weighty considerations, the mentioned most eminent and most reverend Cardinals have unanimously concluded that they do not see any way to deny admission to the Council even to a part of the above-mentions titular bishops.’” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection, 49, 1923, col. 495 f., 525 f. Emphasis supplied. Translation from the original Italian taken from The Papacy, the Episcopacy, and Collegiality by Fr. Bertrams, S.J., note 1, p. 147]

Vatican I, First Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:
“Canon XI: If anyone says that the Church was established as a society of equals, that bishops have an office and ministry indeed, but no proper power of government that is theirs by divine ordination and that they can exercise freely, Anathema sit.” (Mansi 51, 552) (Emphasis supplied. Source: Vatican II schema on residential bishops, note 6.)


http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/a ... shops.html


Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Caminus wrote:
Your accounting for all the elements of the question strikes me as inadequate. Aside from the author's particular opinions concerning other matter, consider the following:

Quote:
“[O]n the occasion of the preparation for the First Vatican Council when a solution had to be presented to the question of the right of titular bishops to participate in the Council.
In the ninth meeting of the directive Congregation on May 17, 1868, Monsignor Angelini, the recorder, among other proposals made the following:
‘The reasoning behind the opposite opinion is based completely upon the power of jurisdiction. Now the simply titular bishops have no effective and actual jurisdiction. Hence they conclude that they lack the basis on which the right to vote rests.
‘Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop acquires in the act of, and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes a member of the episcopal body… Such is the reasoning of Bolgeni, Cappellari who was afterwards Gregory XVI of holy memory, Phillips, and others.’”


I suspect this will be based upon St. Thomas when he deals with Penance. Perhaps when this writer used the phrase "general and universal jurisdiction" he meant what others call "mission." The problem of the traditional clergy is that they do not have any real basis for claiming to enjoy this mission. As a rule they were not ordained (or, a fortiori, consecrated bishops) by men with a clear missio themselves.

Caminus wrote:
“In the same Congregation’s meeting of March 14, 1869, the following is stated:
‘that when the reply distinguishing habitual from actual jurisdiction is left out by otherwise eminent and serious authors in response to the objection usually advanced in opposition and drawn from the fact that titular bishops lack jurisdiction, there is another solid distinction between the particular jurisdiction over a given diocese, which the titular bishops cannot exercise and the general and universal jurisdiction acquired in virtue of the same ordination and common to all bishops. This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church… In view of all these weighty considerations, the mentioned most eminent and most reverend Cardinals have unanimously concluded that they do not see any way to deny admission to the Council even to a part of the above-mentions titular bishops.’” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection, 49, 1923, col. 495 f., 525 f. Emphasis supplied. Translation from the original Italian taken from The Papacy, the Episcopacy, and Collegiality by Fr. Bertrams, S.J., note 1, p. 147]


The ellipsis here is a major problem, "This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church…" What does the text in Mansi say? This fragment doesn't tell us - it merely hints in the direction this author (Bertrams, a Modern theologian) desires. I suggest you go to the original source and get the data yourself. It's still only one man's opinion, but at least you'll know what he actually thought, which at present you don't.

Caminus wrote:
Vatican I, First Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:
“Canon XI: If anyone says that the Church was established as a society of equals, that bishops have an office and ministry indeed, but no proper power of government that is theirs by divine ordination and that they can exercise freely, Anathema sit.” (Mansi 51, 552) (Emphasis supplied. Source: Vatican II schema on residential bishops, note 6.)


This text is not to the point. "Divine ordination" is not a clear reference to sacramental ordination. Indeed, it almost certainly means "by divine law" in this context.



Oh my, this ex-CMRI Schuckardt-ordained character is a nightmare. That essay is a tissue of heterodoxy, with a great deal in common with the heresy of "collegiality" as developed by Rahner, Ratzinger, and Co. I'll only make one specific comment about this:
'Bishop' Joseph Marie wrote:
No Authority Bishops – The Byproduct of Survival Theology?

Survival theology is what I cynically refer to as that body of theology which is not based upon God’s truths, but rather based upon circumstances which errant clergymen have found themselves in, i.e., they create theology to cover their misconduct. The no authority, Sacraments only bishops thesis is one such specimen.


That is autobiographical if ever a comment was! If he isn't an errant clergyman who has found himself in a "position" from which he seeks to extract himself by shoddy, home-baked, theology, then who is? His theology is not based on God's truths, but on his own wishes. What a mess.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
On Penance, I was referring to this: "If we consider the power of the keys, every priest has power over all men equally and over all sins: and it is due to the fact that by the ordination of the Church, he has a limited jurisdiction or none at all, that he cannot absolve all men from all sins." S. Th. Suppl. Q. 8, Art. 6.

Also interesting is St. Thomas's elegant distinction here (Reply to Objection 1 of the same Article): "One person may act on the jurisdiction of another according to the latter's will, since matters of jurisdiction can be deputed. Since, therefore, the Church recognizes absolution granted by any priest at the hour of death, from this very fact a priest has the use of jurisdiction though he lack the power of jurisdiction."

Have a look at some theology manuals for the "power of the keys" and note how it is generally used as a synonym for jurisdiction. Then read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm It's a good discussion of the evolution of the term "power of the keys" in theology.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
.....
Caminus wrote:
“In the same Congregation’s meeting of March 14, 1869, the following is stated:
‘that when the reply distinguishing habitual from actual jurisdiction is left out by otherwise eminent and serious authors in response to the objection usually advanced in opposition and drawn from the fact that titular bishops lack jurisdiction, there is another solid distinction between the particular jurisdiction over a given diocese, which the titular bishops cannot exercise and the general and universal jurisdiction acquired in virtue of the same ordination and common to all bishops. This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church… In view of all these weighty considerations, the mentioned most eminent and most reverend Cardinals have unanimously concluded that they do not see any way to deny admission to the Council even to a part of the above-mentions titular bishops.’” (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nove et amplissima collection, 49, 1923, col. 495 f., 525 f. Emphasis supplied. Translation from the original Italian taken from The Papacy, the Episcopacy, and Collegiality by Fr. Bertrams, S.J., note 1, p. 147]


The ellipsis here is a major problem, "This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church…" What does the text in Mansi say? This fragment doesn't tell us - it merely hints in the direction this author (Bertrams, a Modern theologian) desires. I suggest you go to the original source and get the data yourself. It's still only one man's opinion, but at least you'll know what he actually thought, which at present you don't.


I found the original source for this here:
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_049_%28Conc_Vat_I_Pars_1%29__LT.pdf.html

Below is the selection quoted above in the original Italian. Some letters weren't very clear, so some words may be misspelled below. The italics were in the original, but the bold is the part that I think was left out in the above translation. I don't know Italian, so I didn't attempt to do any translating, besides what was necessary to locate the passage.

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio Vol 049 (Conc Vat I Pars 1), p.525 wrote:
-- che alla obbiezione, che suol moversi in contrario desunta dall esser li vescovi titolari mancanti di giurisdizione, omessa la risposta che scrittori d’ altronde molto gravid anno distinguendo la giurisdizione abituale da quella attuale, vi ha altra sodissima distinzione fra la giurisdizione particolare su di una data diocese, il di cui esercizio li vescovi titolari non hanno, dulla giurisdizione generale ed universal, che si attinge lo forza della ordinazione stessa commune a tutti li vescovi, e che appunto consiste nel diritto d’ insegnamento e di governo su tutta la chiesa, che ha luogo appunto allorche ne concilj il corpo episcopale si trova riunito col papa per gli affari universali della chiesa: - che finalmente, atteso il principio certo, non potersi escludere dal concilio alcun vescovo, purche nonsia acomunicato, sarebbe un esporre il future concilio a gravissime obbiezioni, quando alcuni di questi vescovi titolari non scommunicati venissero esclusai. In vista di tutte queste gravi consideraxioni, li lodati eminentissimi e reverendissimi cardinali banno ad unanimita concluso di non ravvisare alcun giuato modo per negare anche ad una parte de suddetti vescovi titolari l’ ammissione al concilio. Soggiungevano da ultimo gli eminentissimi congregate, che d’ ordinario questi vescovi si distinguono per devoxione verso la santa sede.


Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:16 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Thanks for that, Joe. What a classic example of selective quotation this is.

"giurisdizione generale ed universal ... consiste nel diritto d’ insegnamento e di governo su tutta la chiesa, che ha luogo appunto allorche ne concili il corpo episcopale si trova riunito col papa per gli affari universali della chiesa..."

"general and universal jurisdiction ... which consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church, which takes place in councils where the body of the bishops are united with the pope for the affairs of the universal Church..."

In other words, this "jurisdiction" is the right to attend a general council and take part in its deliberative activity (i.e. have an active voice).

No wonder he cut off the quote at the point he did!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
“[O]n the occasion of the preparation for the First Vatican Council when a solution had to be presented to the question of the right of titular bishops to participate in the Council.

In the ninth meeting of the directive Congregation on May 17, 1868, Monsignor Angelini, the recorder, among other proposals made the following:
‘The reasoning behind the opposite opinion is based completely upon the power of jurisdiction. Now the simply titular bishops have no effective and actual jurisdiction. Hence they conclude that they lack the basis on which the right to vote rests.
‘Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop acquires in the act of, and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes a member of the episcopal body


Quote:
‘that when the reply distinguishing habitual from actual jurisdiction is left out by otherwise eminent and serious authors in response to the objection usually advanced in opposition and drawn from the fact that titular bishops lack jurisdiction, there is another solid distinction between the particular jurisdiction over a given diocese, which the titular bishops cannot exercise and the general and universal jurisdiction acquired in virtue of the same ordination and common to all bishops. This jurisdiction consists precisely in the right to teach and to govern the entire Church… In view of all these weighty considerations, the mentioned most eminent and most reverend Cardinals have unanimously concluded that they do not see any way to deny admission to the Council even to a part of the above-mentions titular bishops.’”


Quote:
What a classic example of selective quotation this is.

"giurisdizione generale ed universal ... consiste nel diritto d’ insegnamento e di governo su tutta la chiesa, che ha luogo appunto allorche ne concili il corpo episcopale si trova riunito col papa per gli affari universali della chiesa..."

"general and universal jurisdiction ... which consists precisely and in the right to teach to govern the entire Church, which takes place in councils where the body of the bishops are united with the pope for the affairs of the universal Church..."

In other words, this "jurisdiction" is the right to attend a general council and take part in its deliberative activity (i.e. have an active voice).

No wonder he cut off the quote at the point he did!


By restricting the question to a relation to a determinate group of laymen, it seems you are suffering from a bit of myopia with regard to this question. As the quotes clearly demonstrate, Titular Bishops, those with no ordinary jurisdiction, have, nevertheless, a certain “universal and general” jurisdiction in virtue of their relation, not with laymen, but rather the body of Bishops. Since those Bishops are members of this body, they share in “some kind of jurisdiction” with regard to teaching, sanctifying and governing, at least potentially.

This is not the error of “collegiality” but rather a simple recognition that legitimate Bishops within the hierarchy have certain rights and privileges in virtue of both their ordination and their principle position within the Church as Bishops. This runs a middle course between the error of collegiality and denying, simply speaking that these Bishops, included in this concept are traditional Bishops, are not Successors in any meaningful sense of the term; have no rights; are mere appendages, etc. If you’ll note a distinction with regard to the notion of Succession, theologians teach that as a body Bishops are deputed as Successors, not taken individually. I think this is an important point to remember. This relation of the Bishop within the Church absolutely excludes Schismatics who are cut off from the Body of Christ and therefore can claim no such jurisdiction.

With regard to the actual quote, I asked that the author’s opinions regarding other matters to be disregarded. Indeed, the context clearly shows that the right of Titular Bishops to exercise their rights within a Council is what is being considered, thus the added phrase offers no substantially new information which would alter the context or the preceding statements. Again, consider this: “Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop acquires in the act of, and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes a member of the episcopal body .“ This is a perfectly reasonable statement and in agreement with traditional theology. There is no question here of ascribing the notion of “supreme authority” to the college of bishops.

It seems clear to me that you are trying to minimize the import of the quotations and render this “right to teach and govern” only applicable within a general Council and describing merely as “the right to attend a general Council and take part in its deliberative activity.” This right in virtue of being member of the body of Bishops to “teach and govern” is not merely a question of “attendance” or “deliberative votes” neither of which are proper ends or functions of such offices.


Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Matthew, the arguments run like this, I think.

The proper members of a general council are the bishops with jurisdiction.
But titulars have no ordinary jurisdiction,
Therefore, titulars have no right to an active voice at a general council.

However:

A general council teaches and governs the universal church
But ordinary jurisdiction is a relation to a local church
Therefore it cannot in itself constitute the reason that ordinaries have the right to attend a general council

Consequently, there must be some kind of "jurisdiction" which all bishops who have a proper mission possess by virtue of their episcopal consecration, before and independent of any grant of ordinary jurisdiction.

Given this, it follows that all bishops must be invited to a general council or the validity of the council could be open to dispute. (If you read Mansi, this is his conclusion.)

This argument is not apodictic, it's probable. But that's all it needs to be to get to the position where the cardinals agree that it would not be safe to exclude the titulars. Therefore the decision follows: invite the titulars.

Caminus wrote:
By restricting the question to a relation to a determinate group of laymen, it seems you are suffering from a bit of myopia with regard to this question. As the quotes clearly demonstrate, Titular Bishops, those with no ordinary jurisdiction, have, nevertheless, a certain “universal and general” jurisdiction in virtue of their relation, not with laymen, but rather the body of Bishops.


No, jurisdiction is a relation between superior and inferior. The relation in view is that which all bishops have with the entire Church, not with their local church or with each other.

Caminus wrote:
Since those Bishops are members of this body, they share in “some kind of jurisdiction” with regard to teaching, sanctifying and governing, at least potentially.


I don't think that's a good distinction. It is a potentia, I agree, but so is ordinary jurisdiction. One is reduced to act daily or at least frequently; the other almost never. But if the respective relations exist, they exist at all times.

Caminus wrote:
This is not the error of “collegiality” but rather a simple recognition that legitimate Bishops within the hierarchy have certain rights and privileges in virtue of both their ordination and their principle position within the Church as Bishops.


See above for my view of what the relatio is which constitutes this "jurisdiction" we are discussing. Collegiality is the error which treats the bishops as a college even when scattered, as if they have some permanent role as a body in the government of the universal Church. Once this is admitted, all manner of consequences flow, as we saw after Vatican II. Read this for some insights: http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/ ... -the-synod

Caminus wrote:
This runs a middle course between the error of collegiality and denying, simply speaking that these Bishops, included in this concept are traditional Bishops, are not Successors in any meaningful sense of the term; have no rights; are mere appendages, etc.


Well, that's not anybody's view, it's the kind of straw man argument the Modernists used in order to press for collegiality. "The Curia thinks of the bishops as agents of Rome out in the provinces." That kind of thing. It was insulting and crude.

Caminus wrote:
If you’ll note a distinction with regard to the notion of Succession, theologians teach that as a body Bishops are deputed as Successors, not taken individually. I think this is an important point to remember. This relation of the Bishop within the Church absolutely excludes Schismatics who are cut off from the Body of Christ and therefore can claim no such jurisdiction.


Agreed about the schismatics, but you need to understand what this notion of "Successors as a body" means. I don't accept the implication you appear to be taking from it. Let's get some quotes on the table and see what they are really saying. I'd do it but I don't have time.

Caminus wrote:
With regard to the actual quote, I asked that the author’s opinions regarding other matters to be disregarded. Indeed, the context clearly shows that the right of Titular Bishops to exercise their rights within a Council is what is being considered, thus the added phrase offers no substantially new information which would alter the context or the preceding statements.


Well, it does, precisely because without it the logic I have laid out at the beginning of this post is not apparent.

Caminus wrote:
Again, consider this: “Yet this total lack of jurisdiction does not seem admissible since it is almost impossible not to acknowledge that at least some jurisdiction was received through the imposition of hands or consecration. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish in a bishop the particular jurisdiction for the governing of some determined Church, which is inevitably received from the Pope, from the general and universal jurisdiction which the bishop acquires in the act of, and in virtue of his ordination, i.e., when he becomes a member of the episcopal body .“ This is a perfectly reasonable statement and in agreement with traditional theology. There is no question here of ascribing the notion of “supreme authority” to the college of bishops.


Agreed. There's a disputed question here, as the quotes acknowledge, and precisely because this side of the dispute has real probability it cannot safely be contradicted in practice.

Caminus wrote:
It seems clear to me that you are trying to minimize the import of the quotations and render this “right to teach and govern” only applicable within a general Council and describing merely as “the right to attend a general Council and take part in its deliberative activity.” This right in virtue of being member of the body of Bishops to “teach and govern” is not merely a question of “attendance” or “deliberative votes” neither of which are proper ends or functions of such offices.


I don't think you understand what I am saying, since you think I am minimising something when I am merely stating what the purported "jurisdiction" we are discussing actually consists in. The bishops have the right to attend, to truly deliberate, and to have an active voice in the judgements of the council. That's all that anybody has, apart from the Roman Pontiff. A general council is a special beast, an extraordinary thing, with its own proper features. My point is to addess realities and not allow mere terms to cloud the question. I had the same thing in view when I pointed you to the discussion on the meaning of the power of the keys. The terms may vary over time, but the realities don't. In this case the theologians who claim that titulars have some kind of jurisdiction are choosing that word "jurisdiction" to describe the thing that all of the members of a general council have. But this begs the question. We agree that all of the members of a general council, in the council, are exercising jurisdiction, as a body. The question is really its nature and its source. Perhaps it is not habitual, and it comes from the Roman Pontiff at and for that assembly. In which case the argument detailed above would fall. That is, there would be no basis for the notion that ordinaries are invited because they already possess some general and universal jurisdiction; and there would consequently be no foundation for the conclusion that titulars have some jurisdiction also - that is, the same universal and general jurisdiction that ordinaries have.

Now, let's suppose that we adopted this controversial notion that titulars have some kind of jurisdiction merely by virtue of their consecration. We are now back to the fundamental notion of "mission" which is precisely the sending of a pastor to the flock by the Church. But that is what cannot be demonstrated in relation to the traditional bishops. They are Catholics; they have recieved episcopal consecration validly; they cannot show that the authority of the Catholic Church approved of this. The very thing which we call "mission" is the one thing they have no way to prove that they have. A canonist might say, they do not even possess a coloured title. There's nothing to get them to first base. Do you agree with that much?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Brunsmann has this, as we have seen.

Quote:
The members of, or participants in, an ecumenical council are primarily the bishops - all bishops who possess actual jurisdiction, even though they may not yet be consecrated. For they are all successors of the Apostles, and as such, iure divino, bearers of the ecclesiastical teaching office.

Brunsmann-Preuss, Vol. IV, p. 84.


He refers us for further explanation to Chas. Augustine's Commentary, Vol. II, pp. 218 sqq. It can be viewed here: https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCa ... 3/mode/2up

Quote:
The first of these three canons speaks of those who are called (vocantur) to attend a council. The term vocantur is to be taken as indicating a matter of fact, not a law or rule. This is plain from the persons enumerated. For cardinals, if not bishops, are called in virtue of their privileged office, which the Vatican Council silently admitted, as does also our Code.

Those who must be called are the bishops, be they patriarchs, primates, archbishops, or simple bishops, provided they are residential, and not merely titular. The reason why the residential bishops must be called lies in their twofold character of pastors and teachers. This double office they exercise in a twofold way: (i) As successors of the Apostles they share in the government of the universal Church and form a body analogous to the college of the Apostles, with whom Christ remains until the end of time. (2) As residential bishops they exercise their office in a determined district or diocese, which, however, is part and parcel of the universal Church. This power is jurisdictional in a particular sense, while the power they exercise over the whole Church is jurisdictional in a general sense, so far, namely, as they convene in council under their legitimate superior.

The next question would be, whether the right of a bishop to be called to a general council depends on episcopal consecration or jurisdiction. The Vatican Council doubtless took the view that it is a right emanating directly from jurisdiction. This is implicitly also the standpoint of our Code, otherwise a bishop confirmed by Rome but not yet consecrated, could not be called. The point is palpably illustrated by the debate concerning the admission of titular bishops. After long deliberation the commission of cardinals entrusted with the investigation of the matter decided that such bishops are to be called, as they are bound by the oath "vocatus ad synodum veniam" The quaestio iuris the commission would not touch. Our Code says, § 2, "etiam episcopi titulares, vocati ad concilium." The delicate question could, of course, be solved only by answering two others: (1) Is the magisterium an act of jurisdiction or of spiritual power based on the power of orders? and (2) Is episcopal jurisdiction derived directly from God by virtue of consecration, or from the Pope? [This question was answered by Pius XII, as Monsignor Fenton shows: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=207 ] The commission would not solve the problem, as the time was too short. It only took the historical point of view, by which it was safely guided, thus making the council what it ought to be; "concilium episcoporum est" as the Council of Chalcedon says.

But there is an unmistakable hint as to the viewpoint which the Vatican Council as well as our Code take with regard to the twofold question proposed above: the office of teacher and pastor follows jurisdiction, not consecration, and this jurisdiction is supposed to be given by the Supreme Pontiff. Hence abbots nullius are called to the council, although many of them are not consecrated; — in the Cassinese Congregation they are not even blessed, though some are real abbates nullius. For these abbots nullius as well for other abbots mentioned S. Sanguineti, S.J., gave his votum. He proved that since the second Nicene Council (787) the monastic bodies and their superiors took a conspicuous part in the affairs of the Church, but their participation in councils was a privilege, not a strict right, though abbots possess a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, which is the reason of their being admitted to councils. But when he comes to the point — punctum saliens — whether all abbots, or only some of them, should be admitted, Fr. Sanguineti's conclusions seem not to tally with his premises. For in the Benedictine Order all abbots regiminis are endowed with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, and neither the Abbot Primate nor the Abbot President possesses real jurisdiction over the individual abbots. Hence the distinction between heads of monastic congregations and superiors of single autonomous monasteries is merely extrinsic. We fail to perceive the intrinsic reason of the distinction made, upon the opinion of Sanguineti, by the commission of cardinals in 1868 and now adopted by the Code. One reason advanced at the meeting, why not all abbots should be admitted, we understand, namely, that their number would be so great as to displease the bishops. Transeat! The superiors of non-exempt congregations were not entitled to be present at general councils, which exclusion was logically based upon the theory of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
Apostolic Succession requires Orders and Ordinary Jurisdiction.


No, it doesn't. That's the point we've made for years, and that the theologians are clear about, and which people don't seem to want to believe. :)


John,

In light of this, combined with the possibility that a bishop could have obtained possession of a diocese through supplied jurisdiction to the papal act of a non-pope, would there be any reason to limit the possibility of an Apostolic Successor mired in the Novus Ordo to only those bishops appointed to dioceses under Paul VI?

If valid consecration is not necessary for one to be an Apostolic Successor, wouldn't non-publicly heretical men appointed to bishoprics by any Conciliar "Pope" be included in the possible set of Apostolic Successors per the Canon 209 principle?


Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:34 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Well, I've always focussed on what I consider to be the most sharply clear position that can be put and debated, in the hope that I could foster some debate on it, with partial success. The idea of certain of a false pope's acts being validated by supplied jurisdiction now has some currency, so that's good. However, on the other hand, none of the serious writers have written on it, for or against, so the debate is low level at this stage.

The next point one could raise, is the pre-Code notion of a coloured title arising from the election by the local (Novus Ordo) clergy of their bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre raised a related possibility in relation to Campos - the election of a successor to de Castro Mayer by his clergy. This didn't happen. Instead, later they selected a bishop who would not claim the title of Bishop of Campos. But if you consider the situation in which there remain true Catholic clergy amongst the "clergy" of some dioceses around the world, including or especially in the East, then the bishop (on condition that he is a Catholic himself), even if his appointment was ratified by say, JP2 or B16, has undergone essentially the same appointment process and claim of the title as Archbishop Lefebvre proposed for Campos. The argument would be that he has what used to be called a coloured title and the intervention of the false pope can be disregarded as irrelevant. Would not supplied jurisdiction step in and validate such a claim to an office?

Of course, this all touches upon the notion that it is possible to remain a Catholic whilst offering the Novus Ordo Missae. You will note that this is not a question any sedevacantist wants to debate, I think because they sense that they haven't any arguments. Instead, if they comment on this, it is generally nothing more than a sneer at the very idea. :) But of course, given the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae is only a Latin Rite perversion, the situation in the Oriental Rites is substantially different anyway. Perhaps we could get somebody to address that possibility at least.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
I wouldn't want to deny that it is possible to remain a Catholic while offering the NO Mass.*** On the otherhand, doesn't it strike you as utterly absurd that the few courageous clerics who would rather die than offend Our Lord have no jurisdiction, no mission, no authority, no membership in their dioceses, and no power whatsoever to resolve the crisis? Instead we have to hope that some unknown clerics (with jurisdiction) buried somewhere in the Conciliar Church structure are going to somehow come to the rescue of traditional Catholics and restore the Church. I have a hard time believing that. I had a hard time believing it when I was with the SSPX and I still have a hard time with it now that I go to a CMRI chapel. Call me a doubting Thomas on that point. I live near Boston Massachusetts where 50% or more of the NO priests are active [edited] (by their own estimates, not mine). Where "Cardinal" O'Malley (or Sean as he prefers to be addressed) closed Holy Trinity Church where the sole traditional Mass in the entire Archdiocese was located and where there were 9 traditional vocations produced in less than 15 years. When he was told of that fact, his response was, "Yes, but they are all traditional vocations..." i.e. they don't count. I don't think Boston is an extreme. I think it is about average for the Church. I have heard other estimates for the entire USA that it is close to 50% [edited]. Do you really think that our heroes are going to emerge out of that cesspool? I'm not going to say that it is impossible. But I will say that we should do penance and humble ourselves and pray that God will use our traditional priests as the means to restore the Church. Not because we deserve it but because they do. I don't know about all of you but I feel like I have been blessed with clergy that are far, far, far better than what I have deserved. One thing that I am absolutely certain of is that God will reward the courage and faith of traditional clerics. Our prayers will be answered.

*** Neither would I want to say that it doesn't matter whether a cleric offers the NOM or the traditional Mass. Those who offer the NOM are risking the loss of their faith.


Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:15 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
I just answered an email this morning from somebody else who suggested that we trads will be the core upon which God will rebuild the Church. I think it's an unwarranted notion.

Here's what I wrote.

Quote:
I have a different perspective on our role. My own activities are simply aimed at assisting others with information and education. The notion that we trads are somehow the Elect or some core from which the Church will be rebuilt does not appeal to my mind at all. God can raise up Christians from the very stones. Imagine a scenario in which there is some clear miracle, perhaps in the wake of a disaster in the world by which man is humbled. A general recovery of religion follows. The trad clergy would undoubtedly play a role as sources of true doctrine. They would be consulted by men who want the truth and know that they have it. But as with St. Augustine or Cardinal Manning or any number of other illustrious and highly intelligent converts who have cooperated with grace (and no doubt, extraordinary graces by the inscrutable dispositions of Providence), and have gone on to play key roles in the rebuilding of religion in a chaotic era, there will be others raised up to lead when the time comes. I'm not excluding the possibility of key leadership roles for the traditional clergy, just pointing out that God could, and has, used newly minted instruments on other occasions, and I think that He does this precisely to ensure that all know that the work is His, not man's.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
ClemensMaria wrote:
Do you really think that our heroes are going to emerge out of that cesspool? I'm not going to say that it is impossible.


Good, because St. Augustine was an habitual sinner and an adherent of the worst, most foul, heresy imaginable, Manichaeism. He consulted St. Ambrose, did penance, learned the faith, then became one of the three great Doctors of all history, St. Paul and St. Thomas being the others. Think of them as three stepping stones from Our Lord. St. Paul, after the manner of a second foundation (with and under St. Peter, of course) and St. Augustine next, with the final one being St. Thomas. With these three virtually the whole of the faith is carried down to us, intact, unspotted, and yet developed and clarified.

St. Jerome, a great Doctor himself, got a bit testy with St. Augustine at one stage when the latter dared to correct him on a point of exegesis (of all things!). St. Augustine was manifestly right, and St. Jerome wrong, but the interplay is fascinating. St. Jerome basically told him that he was an upstart who should be sitting at his feet, not differing with him. St. Augustine replied that yes, he was brand new, but the truth is the truth, so consider what is said, not who says it... :) We might see a few examples like that too, when the re-conversion of the world comes. I can't imagine Bishop Sanborn accepting any criticism of the Guerardian theory from some fresh convert from Modernism... And the thought is delightful! :)

ClemensMaria wrote:
*** Neither would I want to say that it doesn't matter whether a cleric offers the NOM or the traditional Mass. Those who offer the NOM are risking the loss of their faith.


I agree. What we're talking about is the few who have retained their faith despite it. I have known a few over the years. Look at Fr. John Hardon as an example. I have not read all of his writing, so I'm not guaranteeing his orthodoxy completely, but I think he is a reliable Catholic writer on St. Robert Bellarmine's theology, from all that I've seen. I presume that in other writings he has references to Vatican II and "interprets" it in some kind of traditional fashion, but I've not seen any of that. It's beside the point, insofar as we're looking at him for illustrative pruposes only. Fr. John Fullerton told me a story about him which illustrates the confusion of the situation nicely. When Fr. Fullerton was a young priest he received an unsolicited visit by Fr. Hardon, who wanted to know if he wanted to return to the Church. :) Fr. Fullerton said, "I've never left the Church." Fr. Hardon just looked at him, had no further answer, and left shortly afterwards. So there was a man with the faith himself, an opponent of Modernism, so confused about the situation that he thought that other orthodox and at least arguably (certainly, in my opinion!) more faithful men than himself, were outside the Church! But that doesn't affect the question of his own membership of the Church. He appeared to remain a Catholic to his death.

I also say that the largest, most visible, part of the Church is constituted of the traditional Catholics, clergy and faithful. In a period of rapid and general conversion, however, that will change. And our clergy won't be looking for some vindication or special medals for superlative service. They will celebrate the flood of graces and whatever Providence chooses for them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
I just answered an email this morning from somebody else who suggested that we trads will be the core upon which God will rebuild the Church. I think it's an unwarranted notion.

Here's what I wrote.

Quote:
I have a different perspective on our role. My own activities are simply aimed at assisting others with information and education. The notion that we trads are somehow the Elect or some core from which the Church will be rebuilt does not appeal to my mind at all. God can raise up Christians from the very stones. Imagine a scenario in which there is some clear miracle, perhaps in the wake of a disaster in the world by which man is humbled. A general recovery of religion follows. The trad clergy would undoubtedly play a role as sources of true doctrine. They would be consulted by men who want the truth and know that they have it. But as with St. Augustine or Cardinal Manning or any number of other illustrious and highly intelligent converts who have cooperated with grace (and no doubt, extraordinary graces by the inscrutable dispositions of Providence), and have gone on to play key roles in the rebuilding of religion in a chaotic era, there will be others raised up to lead when the time comes. I'm not excluding the possibility of key leadership roles for the traditional clergy, just pointing out that God could, and has, used newly minted instruments on other occasions, and I think that He does this precisely to ensure that all know that the work is His, not man's.


Anything is possible.

I understand that you don't want traditional Catholics to become pharisaic. We are weak and it would be easy to fall into that trap. But the reality is that traditional Catholics are in fact the core upon which God has chosen to sustain his Church. That should not be a source of pride. And it would only take a quick look around to see that very few traditional Catholics have much in the way of natural talents. I don't see many of those who have risen high in the world coming to tradition nor do I see many of those in tradition rising high in the world. I am not aware of anyone like St. Thomas More or St. Louis IX living today. I am not even aware of too many traditionalists who are simply talented and well-respected in their fields. There are definitely some but not too many. From what I can tell, God has chosen the weak and humble to sustain his Church. If there is any doubt about how weak we are, one should consider how pathetic it is that traditionalists fight so much amongst themselves about anything and everything concerning the Church. Consider how paralyzed we are and how powerless we are to do anything about it. The best we can do is hope that someone will come to rescue us. I expect that God will resolve this present crisis by means of the weak and humble much like He did with Gideon. I really don't see any group that is weaker than traditionalists.


Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
If there is any doubt about how weak we are, one should consider how pathetic it is that traditionalists fight so much amongst themselves about anything and everything concerning the Church.


This is very true indeed and can be quite scandalizing even to Catholics with a firm foundation. Pride is at the root of this. But I keep learning more and more that we cannot judge as trite as that may sound at times. Priests go through so much with their parishioners that we have no idea about. Many people cause problems when none are to be found. Others magnify and blow out of proportion legitimate problems. Others still hide real problems that need to be addressed. In summary Tradiland is a mess. A complete and total mess. It should be the one place where we can go to find people in a state of sanctifying grace acting as if they are in a state of sanctifying grace. But no. Anyhow, let me stop. We must pray and frequent the sacraments to the best of our abilities and as our state in life allows. God will indeed take care of the rest. But He will bring us to our breaking point, and past that point, at times. We must embrace His crosses without making our own crosses while attributing those crosses to God and making a saint of ourselves because of the crosses we throw before our feet and trip over claiming, "the will of God, He must love me".


Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Good point about weakness, Clemens. Fr. Sanborn once made a similar point. He said that the brighter kids go to university and lose their faith, so that trads are, on average, less bright than worldly people. There's probably truth in that, although I don't blame the universities so much as the homes...

As for "fighting" I don't see it, unless you mean online, which is an entirely unreal environment. People behave online in ways they don't behave when face to face. I've met people in the USA who have been absolutely foul to me online, and they smiled, were polite, and we chatted pleasantly. I've certainly been guilty of the same thing myself over the years. It's something to keep in mind when we are before the computer, and it's an argument for using real names.

In the real world of trad parishes, my direct observation is that they are havens of peace. People are still people, but this is something that can only be judged by comparison, and the gulf between trads and Novus Ordo parishes could not be wider. Their clergy are gossipy, bitchy, effeminate, weak, and worldly. Ours are manly, mature, and sensible. Their parishes are replete with politics, ours are focussed on the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments. Their children are playing sport on weekends, and the parents, insofar as they have any involvement in their parish, are running fund-raising efforts for the school. Our kids are serving Mass, singing in the choir, and the parents are ensuring that the altar linens and the flowers and all the rest of the practical side of the beauty of the Mass are taken good care of.

I repeat, this is a generalised comparison, so that there will be plenty of exceptions, but they don't affect the over-all picture.

Even the allegation that the SSPX is in turmoil is false, and only has currency because it is repeated daily by activists who wish it were true. A few priests have left, that's it.

The CMRI, in my experience, is like the SSPX - a haven of peace. I think Lance would testify that his experience of the SSPV is similar.

Anyway, I don't think trads fight amongst themselves that much, especially not when you consider the stakes involved in many of our differences of opinion (e.g. potentially invalidly ordained priests!). Charity is an astonishing thing, really.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Good point about weakness, Clemens. Fr. Sanborn once made a similar point. He said that the brighter kids go to university and lose their faith, so that trads are, on average, less bright than worldly people. There's probably truth in that, although I don't blame the universities so much as the homes...

As for "fighting" I don't see it, unless you mean online, which is an entirely unreal environment. People behave online in ways they don't behave when face to face. I've met people in the USA who have been absolutely foul to me online, and they smiled, were polite, and we chatted pleasantly. I've certainly been guilty of the same thing myself over the years. It's something to keep in mind when we are before the computer, and it's an argument for using real names.

In the real world of trad parishes, my direct observation is that they are havens of peace. People are still people, but this is something that can only be judged by comparison, and the gulf between trads and Novus Ordo parishes could not be wider. Their clergy are gossipy, bitchy, effeminate, weak, and worldly. Ours are manly, mature, and sensible. Their parishes are replete with politics, ours are focussed on the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments. Their children are playing sport on weekends, and the parents, insofar as they have any involvement in their parish, are running fund-raising efforts for the school. Our kids are serving Mass, singing in the choir, and the parents are ensuring that the altar linens and the flowers and all the rest of the practical side of the beauty of the Mass are taken good care of.

I repeat, this is a generalised comparison, so that there will be plenty of exceptions, but they don't affect the over-all picture.

Even the allegation that the SSPX is in turmoil is false, and only has currency because it is repeated daily by activists who wish it were true. A few priests have left, that's it.

The CMRI, in my experience, is like the SSPX - a haven of peace. I think Lance would testify that his experience of the SSPV is similar.

Anyway, I don't think trads fight amongst themselves that much, especially not when you consider the stakes involved in many of our differences of opinion (e.g. potentially invalidly ordained priests!). Charity is an astonishing thing, really.


I see your point. Fighting was the wrong word. Major differences of opinion that tend to cause people to go their separate ways is more what I was aiming at. I consider the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, and Ecclesia Dei groups among others to all be Catholic even if I also believe that the validity of some of their sacraments is in question. These differences of opinion are not limited to the status of the papacy. Not only does the SSPX have major differences with the ED groups but even the ED groups don't always get along too well. And, of course the SV groups certainly have quite a few disagreements as well. Without a strong and truly Catholic Pope, unity will be extremely difficult at best.

I feel like I should defend my use of a nom de plume. I live near Boston, Massachusetts and some of the things that traditionalists discuss on internet forums would be considered hate speech in Massachusetts. [Edited] That being said, I revealed my name to John when I signed up for this forum. I have also revealed my name to those who have correponded with me in PMs. So anyone who wants to know my name can PM me. Also, I should say that I admire those of you who know the risks and choose to use your real name anyway. You are much more courageous than I.


Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
ClemensMaria wrote:
I see your point. Fighting was the wrong word. Major differences of opinion that tend to cause people to go their separate ways is more what I was aiming at. I consider the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, and Ecclesia Dei groups among others to all be Catholic even if I also believe that the validity of some of their sacraments is in question. These differences of opinion are not limited to the status of the papacy. Not only does the SSPX have major differences with the ED groups but even the ED groups don't always get along too well. And, of course the SV groups certainly have quite a few disagreements as well. Without a strong and truly Catholic Pope, unity will be extremely difficult at best.


Exactly. And yet we have it (which is a miracle of ecclesiology and a new proof of the Church's divine nature), insofar as we are united by our subjection to the true pre-V2 popes, we obey their laws, offer the same sacrifice and confect and receive the same sacraments, accept all that the Church teaches, and profess it outwardly by our words and actions, and remain in peaceful communion with all other Catholics, insofar as it lies with us to do so. This latter point was a major plank of Archbishop Lefebvre's approach to the crisis. He recognised that Paul VI's liturgy and the manner in which it was imposed constituted at least an inchoate schism, and the fault was on the side of the Modernists, obviously. The Archbishop's principle was always to maintain the stance that they were the aggressors, as they manifestly were, and were cutting themselves off from us (and all of the preceding popes). This explains his constant willingness to go to Rome when asked, and his dislike of all dogmatic opinions which caused disunity. He remained on excellent terms with Bill Morgan and Fr. Raffali, for example, despite their open sedevacantism, precisely because for them it was not a principle of disunity; the Nine he could not deal with, precisely because despite their majority profession of sedeplenism, their agenda was disunity. Fr. Raffali used to receive several SSPX seminarians each year during their summer holidays, at his orphanage near Lourdes. The Archbishop would send them to him so they could do some practical charity and associate closely with the venerable man. Sedevacantism itself was not the issue; the issue was the unity of Catholics. I don't think he was mistaken, either, in assessing that for some - perhaps many - sedevacantism was really not an intellectual conviction so much as a political position...

ClemensMaria wrote:
I feel like I should defend my use of a nom de plume. I live near Boston, Massachusetts and some of the things that traditionalists discuss on internet forums would be considered hate speech in Massachusetts.


I am comfortable with pseudonyms, as long as I know who people are. But I encourage the use of real names for the reason stated above, as all know. As for hate speech, I certainly agree, which is one reason why we are prudent here and we don't discuss many controversial issues which might attract the interest of people with aggressive agendas. I take St. Thomas More's attitude to the King's divorce as our practical guide. We are not required to criticise every assault on God's law in order truly to profess the faith.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
I am informed that this question has again arisen elsewhere, so this post will be a useful reference (and the post by Cristian to which it links):

John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

That there will always be true pastors and doctors (i.e. bishops with jurisdiction) until the end of time is at least theologically certain, if not de fide, by the Vatican Council, I believe.

Quote:
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one.

So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.


But we've covered this before: viewtopic.php?p=9877#p9877


The phrase "shepherds and teachers" is "pastores et doctores" in the original. It's theological language for "bishops with ordinary jurisdiction," or "successors of the Apostles."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Nov 02, 2014 11:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 13 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.