It is currently Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:37 am




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

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !


While the current respectable traditional Bishops do not have " jurisdiction over a particular diocese" I don' think that itself does not make them " successors of the apostles" in any sense. The phrase "apostolic succession" was used by the theologians in common conversation to also mean simply- valid "sacramental orders "

Which I am sure most of us hold true for the respectable grouping of bishops i.e. valid sacramental orders.

I think we might also be able to look again at what occurred during the long interregnum, diocesan bishops were consecrated without a pope, I guess in this day the method John Lane noted could be accomplished - the clergy elect one, and then later will be confirmed when a pope is elected. None of the traditional Bishops I know are claiming ordinary jurisdiction over a particular diocese.

However, I look to some as teachers, given their Holy Orders and training, and I would think the term "successors of the apostles" applies in the hierarchy of order (same sacramental powers) but not properly speaking in the hierarchy of jurisdiction.

In Xto,
Vincent


Hi Vincent,

Robert has already answered most of this, but I have a few thoughts too. By saying "the traditional bishops are not successors of the apostles," is not in any way a statement which should lower a Catholic's high opinion of them. They are respectable or not respectable based on their conduct. It is Catholic teaching that a bishop must possess jurisdiction to be a successor of the apostles. These bishops have the episcopal consecration, but that is not enough.

The case of the diocesan bishops during an interregnum is a different issue. The acceptance of the bishop by the clergy of the diocese with the tacit approval of the pope would be sufficient for the bishop to become the lawful bishop of the diocese.

If this were to happen in our time, the traditional clergy would not be part of this process, except to perhaps act as witnesses or advisers. The lawful clergy of the diocese, (the diocesan clergy), who are still Catholic would be the electors.

The traditional clergy are being watched by Catholics during the crisis. Those bishops and priests who are respectable and have not usurped authority which has not been given to them, and have faithfully brought the sacraments and the faith to the people, will, I am sure have a place of high regard in the future Church when we once again have a pope. Likewise, for those clergy who have not been respectable, I am sure reports will reach the holy see of their behavior during the crisis, and they will be dealt with accordingly.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:41 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 !



Mike- thanks for the posting. Perhaps I am not making anything clear. I am focusing on the term " successors of the apostles" and that recently some traditional Catholics do not afford that term to tradtional bishops.

My stand is this - since the Catholic Church has always admitted Apostolic succession to the separated Orthodox Churches, and does afford them the term " successors of the apostles" it appears we can also accord that term to the Traditional Catholic Bishops with valid Holy Orders. Granted they do not have ordinary jurisdiction.


In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !



Mike- thanks for the posting. Perhaps I am not making anything clear. I am focusing on the term " successors of the apostles" and that recently some traditional Catholics do not afford that term to tradtional bishops.

My stand is this - since the Catholic Church has always admitted Apostolic succession to the separated Orthodox Churches, and does afford them the term " successors of the apostles" it appears we can also accord that term to the Traditional Catholic Bishops with valid Holy Orders. Granted they do not have ordinary jurisdiction.


In Xto,
Vincent


Pax Christi to you also Vincent!

The Eastern schismatics do not have apostolic succession. They have valid orders, but are not successors to the apostles. Does this help to clarify:
Quote:
Apostolicity is not found in any other Church. This is a necessary consequence of the unity of the Church. (See Church, Unity Op The.) If there is but one true Church, and if the Catholic Church, as has just been shown, is Apostolic, the necessary inference is that no other Church is Apostolic. (See above quotations from Newman, "Diff. of Anglicans", 369, 393.) All sects that reject the Episcopate, by the very fact, make Apostolic succession impossible, since they destroy the channel through which the Apostolic mission is transmitted. Historically, the beginnings of all these Churches can be traced to a period long after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Regarding the Greek Church, it is sufficient to note that it lost Apostolic succession by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome. The same is to be said of the Anglican claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, "Divine Plan of the Church", 213; and, Newman, "Diff. of Angl.", Lecture xii.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction. They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church (see Anglican Orders). Anglican orders, however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid; the Anglican Church would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction is essential to Apostolicity of mission. A study of the organization of the Anglican Church shows it to be entirely different from the Church established by Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, Imprimatur, John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, 1907.

This is not meant to be a slight against the traditional bishops. It is humility to know one's place, and this is their place. One cannot claim to have an office or status in the Church which he does not have unless he is a usurper.

I also agree with Robert's statement on his post above that Archbishop Lefebvre was wise to insist the the head of the Society must be a priest rather than a bishop. It is important to avoid any false ideas about the status of these bishops. My opinion is that Archbishop Lefebvre knew the immense danger in this, as false ideas about this could blur Catholic's understanding of who the hierarchy is, and could potentially lead Catholics into the false idea that the traditional bishops are members of the hierarchy (successors of the Apostles).

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:25 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
I really think you are missing the point on this. My point is that you cannot use Van Noort as a source for the idea you are espousing. He did not say what you are saying. He said the bishops must reference the pope. But, there is no pope. Therefore, the statement from Van Noort is not not a source for your argument.
I disagree with your comment, "it lacks the reference to the Pope not so much because there is not Pope, but because these bishops wanted to submit to a non-Pope." Perhaps this is due to a language issue, but you must surely know that the bishops do not want to submit to a non-pope. Any of the remaining bishops with jurisdiction who are Catholic and are following the Vatican II claimants are either (1) ignorant about what they really do teach, or (2) understand what they teach, but think there is an orthodox way of understanding it (i.e. Brian Harrison method).

Dear Mike, you consider the subjective sphere (they are ignorant, they think, etc.). This is a good argument against who wants to demonstrate that these bishops do not exercise their jurisdiction since they are heretics or schismatic. Instead, my question concerns the possibility of to lose apostolic jurisdiction only for the fact of the mere communion with a non-Pope in this particular situation.
I agree that Van Noort, very probably, has not contemplate this circumstance. So, sincerely, I do not want to attribute to him what he has not told. Simply, I note that, also in the case that I examine, it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter.

Mike wrote:
I do not know about you, but I live in the world, and deal with people in the world all the time. I have met many Catholics who identify themselves as Catholics, adhere very strongly to all that the Church teaches, but yet remain convinced that Benedict is the pope, and they even think he is a good pope. You may ask, "how is this possible?" I answer, that people are not always educated, logical, or in some cases not that smart. Some of the Catholics in I am discussing pray daily, including the Rosary, novenas, and many other prayers, and in my opinion, would lay down their life for Christ or the Church. They are that committed to Our Lord and His Church, but at the same time, are completed fooled by Benedict's claim to the papacy. I would also say, that the Catholics in question, do not even for a minute see the conflict between post Vatican II teaching and the Church's teaching. They are ignorant, and they do not have a clue.

It is hard to believe this, but the reality of it is true. Many Catholics are not interested in reading post Vatican II trash, and they educate themselves with the good Pre-Vatican II Church. They use pre-Vatican II prayer books, and pray the Rosary. They live in ignorance of the real state of the Church. They live in little bubbles.

Have you ever asked yourself why Catholics who abandon the Vatican II church and become traditional Catholics do not have to make an abjuration from a sect, before entering the Church? I am not aware of any traditional priest who requires this, but, Catholics continue to find their way to the truth, and they can show up at a Mass, and receive Holy Communion, without ever being challenged that they are not in the Church, due to being in sect outside the Church.

The unspoken reason for this is that these Catholics are victims of a crime.

I perfectly agree, Mike. I have never denied what you just said.
Mike wrote:
They are not members of a non-Catholic sect. They are trying to adhere to the One true Church. I would argue further that this goes for the bishops who retain their Catholic Faith as well. In my opinion, the faithful bishops are either ignorant of the facts, due to not reading or comprehending Vatican II teachings, or in some some delusional belief that Benedict and John Paul were good popes.

I agree again, for what concerns bishops considered as private persons. And I also believe that they – also as bishops, as public persons in their office - take no part of a sect. Nevertheless I doubt that they exercise the apostolic power of jurisdiction if they are in communion with a non-Pope.
Mike wrote:
Either way, ignorance or a delusional belief about another man's heresy or status in the Church is not heresy or schism. You may even call it stupid if you like, but it is not in and of itself against the Faith.

I do not consider the hypothesis of heresy and schism, but the mere fact of the exercise of the power of jurisdiction in communion with a non-Pope in the actual situation.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele, you are charting a very dangerous course when you leave the safety of the Church's theologians, especially when the theologians are in consensus about a particular doctrine. I would say that the course in addition to being dangerous is reckless and may be grounded in pride. The theologians of the Church are trained under the supervision of the authority of the Church, their writings are scrutinized by those commissioned by the Church, and it would be highly unlikely they could be wrong in cases when there is agreement among them.
Do you think it wise to follow writings not approved by the Church when they contradict the moral consensus of the theologians? Also, you must be aware that we have no theologians today. Also, if a priest were trained well in theology in the 1950's, but due to the crisis in the Church, he thought it necessary to depart from sound and accepted theological teaching, then I would say, that he has strayed from his good training. He should have tried to find a way to work within the theology he was taught, and not develop novel systems, which by the way have not been scrutinized or approved by the authority of the Church. Is it wise to follow unapproved theology, especially when the approved theology provides clear answers?

I limit myself just to ask me questions about a situation not covered by the theologians of the past, putting me for everything to the judgment of the Church.
Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
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.

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.

It seems to me that there is a little bit of confusion, dear Mike. Father X is the lawful pastor of that church, but – until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation – he does not exercise his power of pastor.


Mike wrote:
For those that are still Catholic, they submit to it through ignorance, not through willful participation. There is a difference. Every Catholic from the 1960's on that has ever lived under Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, and has believed them to be pope, adhered through ignorance at least to some degree to their laws, their appointments, etc. But, as I said before, when Catholics realized the true state of affairs, they abandon these imposters either completely or at least in practice, but they do not make an abduration to enter the Church, since they have never left the Church.
Every act of obedience by Catholics to the system controlled by these imposters is an act done through ignorance, not through agreement with an evil program.
How about a story to think about this: The king has died. The royal court has disguised an imposter and evil man to take control of the kingdom, with a false but convincing claim to the monarchy. The new king is in reality a traitor and is selling out his realm to the neighboring kingdom, despite the fact that this will lead to untold suffering upon the people. There is a division among those loyal to the king. Some say, "he is the rightful heir, who are we to question the king, he must know what he is doing with his policies." This group is further deceived by the fact that the imposter king uses every deceptive artifice available to him to deceive those in the kingdom into believing his royal claim and secondly that he is a good king. Another faction, far more aware than the first, has seen that this king is a false claimant, and his policies are evil and are undermining the kingdom. This faction refuses to obey him, and is seeking to protect the realm from his evil policies. Gradually, through the course of reasoned argument and presentation of evidence the second faction convinces some from the first group to understand that their loyalty to the king is misplaced, as he is a false claimant to the throne and is secondly an enemy to the kingdom.

Do you think those who have not figured out that the imposter king is an imposter are wrong for not figuring it out? Secondly, for that group, are they wrong for trying to see that the king's policies may be good, but they just do not understand it yet, or perhaps they just do not understand the king's policies to begin with? Would you not agree that both groups are loyal to the kingdom and to the line or kings?


Mike, I think that the men in both groups are goods.
In our case, I think that the souls of all Catholic faithful (even if not traditionalists) may be saved. Catholic Faith may remain into a man even if he recognizes Benedict XVI as a true Pope, and even if this man professes externally a heresy (as that of religious freedom of Vatican II).
My problem concerns the compatibility of the exercise of the apostolic power of jurisdiction and the communion with Benedict XVI, or in general with a non-Pope.

Mike wrote:
I believe that the text of the Vatican Council can only be interpreted in the manner I stating it: That the successors of the Apostles, (the hierarchy) must be always present in the world until the end of the time. This understanding that I have is not just my own, but it is the only understanding published in approved Catholic books up until the time of the crisis. The source I have you is in a book given approval by Rome and by numerous bishops, and in addition to my source, I linked you with others who say the same, and as I said before, to Cristian's research also saying the same thing. In short, all Catholics explicitly or at least implicitly believed this doctrine prior to the crisis in the Church.
I also believe that if you had lived in any other time in the history of the Church, you would never have held that the successor's of the apostles could cease to exist from the world for a given time. You love your faith too much for that, and besides that, you would have had to answer to the Church's authorities for this type of heretical position. In my opinion, you are only holding this view, because you do not see the other way. I am trying to tell you, (and John Lane and others as well), that there is another way, are you ready to look into it?

Dear Mike, I think that all Catholics believed that the successors of the Apostles must be always present in the world until the end of the time in the same way in which all Catholics believed that the successors of Peter must be always present in the world until the end of the time.
I think it is wrong to “identify” the Magisterium with the doctrines of the theologians.
But I am aware that the consensus on the matter is strong and important. For this reason, my judgment is not definitive. And I continue to reflect on the problem.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele, you must be aware you cannot compare the temporary vacancy of papal office with the entire absence of the hierarchy. Our Lord deliberately set up the papal office to be filled with men who would die, and then be succeeded by men to take their place. He did not have to do it this way. He could have protected the pope from death, and the office would have never been vacant, but that was not the plan. The same goes for individual bishops who die and they are then succeeded by another bishop.
But, your argument is not this at all. It is radical. You are arguing that the entire world episcopate can cease to be, and that there is no longer in the world any bishops who are successors of the apostles. This directly opposes Our Lord's constitution given to the Church, which was that He commissioned the apostles to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful, and these apostles would have direct successors until the end of time. Some regions of the church may have been lost to heresy or other forces, but no Catholic would ever believe the entire hierarchy would end. I really wonder if you have thought about he implications of what you are saying.

Mike, perhaps you do not think how much the Episcopacy is founded on the Papacy.
You say that without living bishops (with power of jurisdiction) there is no more a hierarchy and therefore there is no more the Church as the Christ has instituted. If I should reasoning as you, I should say that without Pope the Church is no more monarchical as the Christ has founded her.
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant].
When we speak of continuity in the « succession » until the end of the time, we speak of a moral continuity.

Mike wrote:
Gabriele, I offer you cordial greetings as well. We must discuss with confidence but always with the goal of being ready to embrace the truth once we become aware. I thank you also for the pleasant discussion. I think this matter is critical at this stage of the crisis to be understood well.

I agree, Mike. Also when you say that we must to embrace the truth once we become aware.

Mike wrote:
As stated above in this reply. The reason that these bishops may adhere to Benedict XVI, or his predecessors is that they wish to remain Catholic and not fall into schism. I think that is the rational basis for adhering to these men. As stated above, they may be ignorant or perhaps deluded about these men, and thinking that these men are legitimate popes, they believe that it is their duty to remain in communion with them, while at the same time retaining their Catholic Faith.

In my opinion, these bishops – when they were aware of the damages that were doing conciliar “Popes” – have chosen to remain in communion with them for fear. Fear is a very human feeling. And I, under this point of view, understand them very well.

Ps: Only for precision. As far as I know, Fr. Guérard did not speak of a "materialiter" hierarchy. They do it some of his scholars. Others, like Father Belmont (that follows the Cassiciacum Thesis), reject this idea and they share your.


Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:27 pm
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:
As far as I know, Fr. Guérard did not speak of a "materialiter" hierarchy. They do it some of his scholars. Others, like Father Belmont (that follows the Cassiciacum Thesis), reject this idea and they share your.


Gabriele,

If you get an opportunity to speak with Fr. Belmont do so, and listen carefully, because your idea is heretical. That would be why Guerard never said it, and Fr. Belmont doesn't accept it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:32 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:
As far as I know, Fr. Guérard did not speak of a "materialiter" hierarchy. They do it some of his scholars. Others, like Father Belmont (that follows the Cassiciacum Thesis), reject this idea and they share your.


Gabriele,

If you get an opportunity to speak with Fr. Belmont do so, and listen carefully, because your idea is heretical. That would be why Guerard never said it, and Fr. Belmont doesn't accept it.


Dear John,

even if Fr. Guérard never spokes of a "materialiter hierarchy", the better (in my opinion) scholars of him retain that this doctrine is a natural consequence of the Thesis.
It is just for to have read some works of Fr. Belmont that I have begun to explore the issue of the actual status of the episcopacy. I think that the good Fr. Belmont has a wrong conception of the episcopacy, because he can not conceive, even in extraordinary times like this, that in a bishop the power of order can exist without the power of jurisdiction. For this reason, he is opposed to the episcopal consecrations of sedevacantist or traditionalist bishops. On the contrary, Fr. Guérard received episcopal consecration in order to perpetuate the Holy Mass and the Catholic priesthood for the salvation of souls.
In any case, the problem of the existence in act of the episcopacy does not concern directly the Cassiciacum Thesis. I am happy to discuss with you and Mike of this issue.

A cordial greeting.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:29 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 !

Mike- thanks for the thoughtful reply. And I hope all is well for you and yours ! In my view the traditional bishops can be given the expression “ successors of the apostles” i.e. same sacramental powers, but not in the hierarchy of jurisdiction.
It appears we are at different levels here, you are referring absolutely to the term apostolic succession. However me thinks it is a bit more complicated, and certainly the church recognizes the Orthodox as having Valid Episcopal Orders by the very fact they can trace themselves back to the Apostles. The Church does not re-ordain Orthodox priests or bishop when they abjure there errors and enter into full communion.

At the Second Council of Lyons ( 1274) and again at the Council of Basel/Ferrera/Florence ( 1431-35 the orthodox clergy present were treated as such, even though still in schism.

Pope Pius XII he mentions the esteem given to the Orthodox, and if they enter the Catholic church there rites and rules will be accepted in toto.
Quote:
ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS;

All the Eastern Churches, as history proves, have ever been the object of the deep affection of the Roman pontiffs, who, grieving as deeply over their leaving the one fold and "not for any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for the salvation of all,"[1] have again and again called upon them to return speedily to the unity which they had unhappily abandoned. They were absolutely convinced that if this union were happily restored the most fruitful consequences would result both for the whole of Christendom and for the orientals in particular; for the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and all its members cannot but greatly benefit from the full and perfect unity of all Christians.


2. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the orientals need have no fear at all of being compelled to abandon their lawful rites and customs if unity of faith and government is restored; our predecessors have more than once made this absolutely clear. "Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that we or any of our successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your patriarchs, or the established ritual of any one of your churches."[2] Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Praeclara gratulationis, 20th June, 1894, Acta Leonis XIII, 14, p.


And in : Orientalis Ecclesiae


27. We would have this to be known and appreciated by all, both by those who were born within the bosom of the Catholic Church, and by those who are wafted towards her, as it were, on the wings of yearning and desire. The latter especially should have full assurance that they will never be forced to abandon their legitimate rites or to exchange their own venerable and traditional customs for Latin rites and customs. All these are to be held in equal esteem and equal honor, for they adorn the common Mother Church with a royal garment of many colors. Indeed this variety of rites and customs, preserving inviolate what is most ancient and most valuable in each, presents no obstacle to a true and genuine unity. It is especially in these times of ours, when the strife and discord of war have estranged men's hearts from one another nearly all the world over, that all must be impelled by the stimulus of Christian charity to promote union in Christ and through Christ by every means in their power.


My point -the phrase "apostolic succession and/or successors of the apostles” was used in common conversation to mean simply "valid sacramental orders.” You are insisting that the Traditional Bishops and Orthodox , are not “successors of the apostles” in any sense.


In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:59 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince, there's plenty to be learned by studying the precise status of the Eastern schismatic churches, but you will look in vain I think for any reference by the Roman Pontiffs to their bishops as having the apostolic succession. They have what is called "material succession" which is realy a way of saying they do not have true succession. But I don't think a Roman Pontiff has ever referred even to "material succession" - it's a term from theology, not from any papal document.

But what is true, is that the offices these men purport to hold are true offices of the Catholic Church with ordinary jurisdiction attached to them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike- thanks for the thoughtful reply. And I hope all is well for you and yours ! In my view the traditional bishops can be given the expression “ successors of the apostles” i.e. same sacramental powers, but not in the hierarchy of jurisdiction.
It appears we are at different levels here, you are referring absolutely to the term apostolic succession. However me thinks it is a bit more complicated, and certainly the church recognizes the Orthodox as having Valid Episcopal Orders by the very fact they can trace themselves back to the Apostles. The Church does not re-ordain Orthodox priests or bishop when they abjure there errors and enter into full communion.

At the Second Council of Lyons ( 1274) and again at the Council of Basel/Ferrera/Florence ( 1431-35 the orthodox clergy present were treated as such, even though still in schism.

Pope Pius XII he mentions the esteem given to the Orthodox, and if they enter the Catholic church there rites and rules will be accepted in toto.
Quote:
ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS;

All the Eastern Churches, as history proves, have ever been the object of the deep affection of the Roman pontiffs, who, grieving as deeply over their leaving the one fold and "not for any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for the salvation of all,"[1] have again and again called upon them to return speedily to the unity which they had unhappily abandoned. They were absolutely convinced that if this union were happily restored the most fruitful consequences would result both for the whole of Christendom and for the orientals in particular; for the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and all its members cannot but greatly benefit from the full and perfect unity of all Christians.


2. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the orientals need have no fear at all of being compelled to abandon their lawful rites and customs if unity of faith and government is restored; our predecessors have more than once made this absolutely clear. "Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that we or any of our successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your patriarchs, or the established ritual of any one of your churches."[2] Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Praeclara gratulationis, 20th June, 1894, Acta Leonis XIII, 14, p.


And in : Orientalis Ecclesiae


27. We would have this to be known and appreciated by all, both by those who were born within the bosom of the Catholic Church, and by those who are wafted towards her, as it were, on the wings of yearning and desire. The latter especially should have full assurance that they will never be forced to abandon their legitimate rites or to exchange their own venerable and traditional customs for Latin rites and customs. All these are to be held in equal esteem and equal honor, for they adorn the common Mother Church with a royal garment of many colors. Indeed this variety of rites and customs, preserving inviolate what is most ancient and most valuable in each, presents no obstacle to a true and genuine unity. It is especially in these times of ours, when the strife and discord of war have estranged men's hearts from one another nearly all the world over, that all must be impelled by the stimulus of Christian charity to promote union in Christ and through Christ by every means in their power.


My point -the phrase "apostolic succession and/or successors of the apostles” was used in common conversation to mean simply "valid sacramental orders.” You are insisting that the Traditional Bishops and Orthodox , are not “successors of the apostles” in any sense.


In Xto,
Vincent


Dear Vincent,

Thank you for your thoughts. I think you would agree that when terms become ambiguous, that can lead to danger. The term "successors of the Apostles" is only for those bishops with both valid orders and jurisdiction. I am not denying that the traditional bishops and the eastern schismatics have valid orders and episcopal lines. But, they both lack jurisdiction and by that fact, they are not entitled to be called "successors of the Apostles." The quote you cited above does not have any mention of term "successors of the Apostles," or "Apostolic Succession."

I have never heard the traditional bishops called successors of the Apostles in common conversation, but, if I ever did hear it, I would tell those saying it the truth, that these bishops are not the successors of the Apostles. I would however state that they do (at least in most cases) have certainly valid episcopal lines. I also think there is a reasonable argument to made that they (the traditional bishops) have a right to exist and do what they are doing.

The traditional bishops are an anomaly in the Church. The theologians do not to my knowledge ever mention this concept. Their existence in the Church is only due to the reaction to the devastation of the hierarchy after Vatican II. Unlike the Eastern Schismatics, they are Catholics.

I do not know what you mean when you say, "You are insisting that the Traditional Bishops and Orthodox , are not “successors of the apostles” in any sense." Either they are successors of the Apostles or they are not. They cannot be partially successors.

I do understand where you are coming from. There has for a long time, perhaps since the 1970's been this loose and imprecise way of talking among "traditional" Catholics. For example, some chapels refer to the priest in charge as a "Pastor." This of course is a canonical term, and should not be used for priests lacking a mission or an appointment from the Church. If I had time, I could make a list of these loose and ambiguous terms but I think you get my point.

I am trying to understand your argument. Do you think it is better to use loose and imprecise terminology?

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:54 am
Profile

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

In order to shorten the post, as they are getting long, I will address the issues that we still need to discuss and consider the others resolved.

1. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
my question concerns the possibility of to lose apostolic jurisdiction only for the fact of the mere communion with a non-Pope in this particular situation.


There is no Catholic authority who states that a bishop loses jurisdiction through communion with a false claimant generally accepted to be the pope. It is Catholic teaching that if a bishop separates from Peter, he loses jurisdiction. But, this is not the case. The post Vatican II claimants have convinced most of the world, including the at least most of the hierarchy that they were Peter.

In order to prove the theory that bishops lose jurisdiction when they erroneously adhere to a man they consider Peter, but who is in reality not Peter, then one will have to provide sources. All of the sources I have state that bishops lose jurisdiction for very heresy, schism, etc. I can save you the time, however, you will not find these sources, because they do not exist. To follow this theory you will have to leave the safety of the consensus of the theologians.

2. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
I agree again, for what concerns bishops considered as private persons. And I also believe that they – also as bishops, as public persons in their office - take no part of a sect. Nevertheless I doubt that they exercise the apostolic power of jurisdiction if they are in communion with a non-Pope.


I agree that no Catholic take part in a sect, that would obviously sever them from the Church. The question we are discussing is whether they are in fact in a sect. In my opinion, you are simplifying a highly complex issue. If you ask any of these bishops in question, "Have you left the Catholic Church to join the sect called, "the Conciliar Church?" What do you think they would say? If they say they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors, then they are Catholics, and since they are Catholics and are not schismatics or heretics, then they retain their jurisdiction.

3. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that there is a little bit of confusion, dear Mike. Father X is the lawful pastor of that church, but – until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation – he does not exercise his power of pastor.


It cannot be argued that just because Father X was not using his office as Pastor, that the failure to use the office made him lose the office. When he becomes aware that he has been duped by an imposter, who had no authority to accept his resignation, he then takes his parish back. The office of Pastor for a Church can only be filled by one priest. Father X was the lawfully appointed Pastor. Bishop Y, has no power in the Church, he is a heretic. He has no authority to accept resignations.

4. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
My problem concerns the compatibility of the exercise of the apostolic power of jurisdiction and the communion with Benedict XVI, or in general with a non-Pope.


As we have discussed before, how do you form an argument from theology to defend this? The theologians discuss the concept of the loss of office. I do not think we need to discuss resignation, transfers and excommunication here, so let us only discuss the reasons for loss of office which applies to the bishops since Vatican II.

Heresy: Has the bishop embraced heretical ideas taught by the Vatican II church. Does he adhere to heresies knowing that his ideas are against the teaching of the Church?

Schism: Has the bishop severed himself from the Church by joining a non-Catholic sect? Has the bishop severed himself from Peter's successors?

It seems to me that your only point of argument may focus on whether the bishops have joined a non-Catholic sect. We agree if the bishops have abandoned their faith and have joined this new religion. But we disagree if the bishop still retains his Catholic Faith and is only adhering to Benedict to the best of his knowledge to remain in the Church.

The act of adherence to a non-pope is not a concept that in and of itself, without the element of schism attached to it, is taught by Catholic theology for a reason for the loss of jurisdiction.

5. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, I think that all Catholics believed that the successors of the Apostles must be always present in the world until the end of the time in the same way in which all Catholics believed that the successors of Peter must be always present in the world until the end of the time.


Yes, but Catholics always and everywhere understood that popes die and that there is an interregnum. Catholics who lived in former ages may be shocked at the length of this interregnum, but the Church has not taught any length of time of an interregnum.

What the Church has taught, and the Vatican Council has affirmed is that the Hierarchy of the Church will continue until the end of the world. The consensus of the theologians on this doctrine are explaining the same teaching as it was given by the Vatican Council. Why would you want to chart a path against this teaching? In your writings on this forum you have always showed great respect to the theologians, why are you considering departing from them on this point?

6. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Mike, perhaps you do not think how much the Episcopacy is founded on the Papacy.
You say that without living bishops (with power of jurisdiction) there is no more a hierarchy and therefore there is no more the Church as the Christ has instituted. If I should reasoning as you, I should say that without Pope the Church is no more monarchical as the Christ has founded her.
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]”.
When we speak of continuity in the « succession » until the end of the time, we speak of a moral continuity.


Your argument is not accurate, because I am not saying that the Church will permanently be without a pope, only temporarily. The Church remains monarchical in the sense that the office of the pope continues, and is waiting to be filled. If a king dies, and a false steward takes control for decades, until the lawful heir return and becomes king, is that kingdom not monarchical during the interregnum?

Our Lord founded the Church with a papacy that would have interregnums between each pope. The time that goes between the interregnum does not destroy the monarchical nature of the Church. If interregnums were a danger to the Papacy, Our Lord could have used his Divine Power to allow Peter to never die. Our Lord did not set up the Church this way. Our current interregnum is no more a danger to the Papacy as any other interregnum has been. The principles remain the same.

7. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion, these bishops – when they were aware of the damages that were doing conciliar “Popes” – have chosen to remain in communion with them for fear. Fear is a very human feeling. And I, under this point of view, understand them very well.


You may think their reason is fear, but you do not know their reason is fear. You cannot make judgments about that which you do not know.

8. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Ps: Only for precision. As far as I know, Fr. Guérard did not speak of a "materialiter" hierarchy. They do it some of his scholars. Others, like Father Belmont (that follows the Cassiciacum Thesis), reject this idea and they share your.


Have you wondered why Bp. Guérard did not speak of a material hierarchy? His ideas of a material pope are not heretical, they are novel, and are not part of the teaching of the theologians. The idea of a material hierarchy, however, is heretical, as it denies both the apostolicity and the visibility of the Church. It may be that some that follow him embrace this, but I believe that Bp. Guérard would not have touched this heresy with a ten-foot pole.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:13 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
1. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
my question concerns the possibility of to lose apostolic jurisdiction only for the fact of the mere communion with a non-Pope in this particular situation.


There is no Catholic authority who states that a bishop loses jurisdiction through communion with a false claimant generally accepted to be the pope. It is Catholic teaching that if a bishop separates from Peter, he loses jurisdiction. But, this is not the case. The post Vatican II claimants have convinced most of the world, including the at least most of the hierarchy that they were Peter.

In order to prove the theory that bishops lose jurisdiction when they erroneously adhere to a man they consider Peter, but who is in reality not Peter, then one will have to provide sources. All of the sources I have state that bishops lose jurisdiction for very heresy, schism, etc. I can save you the time, however, you will not find these sources, because they do not exist.

It is very probably.

Mike wrote:
To follow this theory you will have to leave the safety of the consensus of the theologians.

Nevertheless, it is appropriate to distinguish.
One thing is the theory for which in this particular situation a bishop loses the power of jurisdiction if he is in communion with a non-Pope. Other thing is the theory for which it is possible that the episcopacy can exist only in potentia for a period.
The second theory concerns the indefectibility of the Church and therefore the faith. Not the first.

Mike wrote:
I agree that no Catholic take part in a sect, that would obviously sever them from the Church. The question we are discussing is whether they are in fact in a sect. In my opinion, you are simplifying a highly complex issue. If you ask any of these bishops in question, "Have you left the Catholic Church to join the sect called, "the Conciliar Church?" What do you think they would say? If they say they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors, then they are Catholics, and since they are Catholics and are not schismatics or heretics, then they retain their jurisdiction.

Ok, Mike. For you only heresy and schism are causes of loss of jurisdiction.
Note that what you say it is valid also for Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger. They also do not belong to a sect.

Mike wrote:
3. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that there is a little bit of confusion, dear Mike. Father X is the lawful pastor of that church, but – until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation – he does not exercise his power of pastor.


It cannot be argued that just because Father X was not using his office as Pastor, that the failure to use the office made him lose the office. When he becomes aware that he has been duped by an imposter, who had no authority to accept his resignation, he then takes his parish back. The office of Pastor for a Church can only be filled by one priest. Father X was the lawfully appointed Pastor. Bishop Y, has no power in the Church, he is a heretic. He has no authority to accept resignations.

One thing is the possession of the power, other thing is the exercise of the power. If I don’t remember wrong, several theologians upon which you make reference for the issue that we discuss, they say that the power of jurisdiction will be exercised by the bishops until the end of the time. It is not sufficient to have the power. It is necessary to exercise it. And in the example that you have made, Father X does not exercise his power of pastor until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation.

Example from the theologians of the past quoted in this forum:

Palmieri D., Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, 1902.
“Hinc Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, 11-12, ait quod Deus dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos... quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem Sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi. Ex quo patet necesse est ut actio eorum qui enumerati sunt perduret quoad consummandi sunt sancti et corpus Christi aedificandum. Dupliciter vero ipsa perdurare potest, vel quatenus eius efficacia maneat, vel quatenus continua successione semper actu existat. Iam vero patet hoc alterum quoque requiri; dicuntur enim a Deo illi dati in opus ministerii, quod actuale requirit exercitium potestatis. Porro Apostoli quatenus tales secundum totam amplitudinem potestatis perpetui esse non debebant; prophetas quoque et evangelistas, prout speciale munus significatur, perpetuos esse non debuisse satis constat; restat ergo ut pastores et doctores quatenus tales, quorum est proprium ministerium quo aedificatur corpus Christi et consummantur sancti, perpetua successione perdurent, quorum ministerium illud quoque obtinetur, ut ministerii aliorum quod transiit efficacia semper perseveret. Ex divina igitur institutione debent esse in Ecclesia post Apostolos ii qui sint pastores et doctores, qui nempe habeant potestatem regendi, docendi simulque sanctificandi.” (Poleg. Num. 17).
“Fieri autem potest, ut Christus sit usque ad consummationem saeculi cum Apostolis docentibus alterutro modo: vel quatenus ipsae personae Apostolorum victurae erant usque ad finem saeculi, vel quatenus hi continuos successores erant habituri. Nam et in hac hypotesi Christus proprie locutus esset, dicens se futurum cum Apostolis usque ad finem saeculi; quod enim toti successioni quis dicere velit, recte primis affirmat spectatis ut primis, habituris perpetuos heredes. Iam vero priorem modum ipsa historia excludit; restat ergo alter. Igitur Magisterium Apostolicum in successoribus Apostolorum perpetuo durabit et Christo auxiliante munere suo feliciter fungentur discipulos faciens, docens h. e. actu se exercens
. (Num. 27).
Mike wrote:
4. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
My problem concerns the compatibility of the exercise of the apostolic power of jurisdiction and the communion with Benedict XVI, or in general with a non-Pope.


As we have discussed before, how do you form an argument from theology to defend this? The theologians discuss the concept of the loss of office. I do not think we need to discuss resignation, transfers and excommunication here, so let us only discuss the reasons for loss of office which applies to the bishops since Vatican II.

Heresy: Has the bishop embraced heretical ideas taught by the Vatican II church. Does he adhere to heresies knowing that his ideas are against the teaching of the Church?

Schism: Has the bishop severed himself from the Church by joining a non-Catholic sect? Has the bishop severed himself from Peter's successors?

It seems to me that your only point of argument may focus on whether the bishops have joined a non-Catholic sect. We agree if the bishops have abandoned their faith and have joined this new religion. But we disagree if the bishop still retains his Catholic Faith and is only adhering to Benedict to the best of his knowledge to remain in the Church.

The act of adherence to a non-pope is not a concept that in and of itself, without the element of schism attached to it, is taught by Catholic theology for a reason for the loss of jurisdiction.

I know that classical theology has identified two causes (heresy and schism) for the loss of jurisdiction. But, do you admit that theological science could not have asked about certain issues? Can you conceive that we are facing a new situation?

Mike wrote:
5. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, I think that all Catholics believed that the successors of the Apostles must be always present in the world until the end of the time in the same way in which all Catholics believed that the successors of Peter must be always present in the world until the end of the time.


Yes, but Catholics always and everywhere understood that popes die and that there is an interregnum. Catholics who lived in former ages may be shocked at the length of this interregnum, but the Church has not taught any length of time of an interregnum.

What the Church has taught, and the Vatican Council has affirmed is that the Hierarchy of the Church will continue until the end of the world. The consensus of the theologians on this doctrine are explaining the same teaching as it was given by the Vatican Council.

The consensus of the theologians of the past is upon one possible interpretation of the Magisterium of the Church.
Mike wrote:
Why would you want to chart a path against this teaching? In your writings on this forum you have always showed great respect to the theologians, why are you considering departing from them on this point?

I think that theologians of the past could not have asked about certain issues that we can ask to us nowadays.

Mike wrote:
6. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Mike, perhaps you do not think how much the Episcopacy is founded on the Papacy.
You say that without living bishops (with power of jurisdiction) there is no more a hierarchy and therefore there is no more the Church as the Christ has instituted. If I should reasoning as you, I should say that without Pope the Church is no more monarchical as the Christ has founded her.
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]”.
When we speak of continuity in the « succession » until the end of the time, we speak of a moral continuity.


Your argument is not accurate, because I am not saying that the Church will permanently be without a pope, only temporarily. The Church remains monarchical in the sense that the office of the pope continues, and is waiting to be filled. If a king dies, and a false steward takes control for decades, until the lawful heir return and becomes king, is that kingdom not monarchical during the interregnum?

Our Lord founded the Church with a papacy that would have interregnums between each pope. The time that goes between the interregnum does not destroy the monarchical nature of the Church. If interregnums were a danger to the Papacy, Our Lord could have used his Divine Power to allow Peter to never die. Our Lord did not set up the Church this way. Our current interregnum is no more a danger to the Papacy as any other interregnum has been. The principles remain the same.

Dear Mike, it seems to me that you have not understood my intervention. I apologize if I was not clear.
I quoted Fr. Zapelena s.j. for to say that the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy. In this way, as well as the time that goes between the interregnum does not destroy the monarchical nature of the Church (for to use your words), the time that we live without bishops in act does not destroy the hierarchical nature of the Church. As well as the Papacy is not ended in absence of a living Pope, the Episcopacy is not ended in absence of living bishops.

Mike wrote:
7. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion, these bishops – when they were aware of the damages that were doing conciliar “Popes” – have chosen to remain in communion with them for fear. Fear is a very human feeling. And I, under this point of view, understand them very well.


You may think their reason is fear, but you do not know their reason is fear. You cannot make judgments about that which you do not know.

Can I have my opinion?

Mike wrote:
8. Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Ps: Only for precision. As far as I know, Fr. Guérard did not speak of a "materialiter" hierarchy. They do it some of his scholars. Others, like Father Belmont (that follows the Cassiciacum Thesis), reject this idea and they share your.


Have you wondered why Bp. Guérard did not speak of a material hierarchy? His ideas of a material pope are not heretical, they are novel, and are not part of the teaching of the theologians. The idea of a material hierarchy, however, is heretical, as it denies both the apostolicity and the visibility of the Church. It may be that some that follow him embrace this, but I believe that Bp. Guérard would not have touched this heresy with a ten-foot pole.

Yes I have asked him, but I have few sources to assess his thinking.

About visibility. Do you think that the fact of a bishop who externally professes heresy is compatible with the visibility of the Church? We can not say if he is a heretic, on the contrary we are convinced that he maintain Catholic Faith in his heart and that he is not aware to go against the Faith (“Brian Harrison method”). But he externally professes the heresy.
We can think that the visibility of the Church is guaranteed if this is one bishop in the entire Episcopacy (a bishop is not infallible and he may, without awareness, to go for a mistake against a dogma). But in our situation, where it lacks the Pope and the Episcopacy is reduced to a very small number of bishops, do you think that the visibility of the Church would be guaranteed by these bishop if they externally professed the heresy?

A cordial greeting

Ps: In general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is about you the visibility of the Church nowadays?


Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:


I quoted Fr. Zapelena s.j. for to say that the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy.


Sorry to jump in :)

Carissimo Gabriele, where does Zapelena say that "the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy".

Sure you don`t mean this do you?

Quote:
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]”.


Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
Sorry to jump in :)


Cristian,

Do not be sorry. Your presence is always greatly appreciated!

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:46 pm
Profile

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

A cordial greeting to you.

I am going to respond to your last post, but I would like put forth some questions before I do. I think on some of these subject we are talking past each other, and we need to establish some "first principles" to guide our discussion. I am hoping that we can clarify better our method of learning from the Church, so we can begin "speaking the same language." (and I am not referring to English and Italian :) )

Principles

1. Do you believe that Catholics should humbly learn from the theologians, especially when there is a consensus on a subject? Secondly, on this same subject, do you believe that Catholics should expand on the teachings of the theologians by adopting opinions which are not approved by the teaching authority of the Church?

2. Do you agree with these facts about theologians: They are trained in seminaries and universities under the direct authority of the Church. The writings of the theologians are scrutinized by other theologians, meaning that if any of them teach an error it would be detected. Lastly, the writings of the theologians are carefully studied and approved by the authority of the Church, by the bishops, the heads of the religious orders and the Holy See.

3. When there is a consensus among theologians it is not generally permissible for Catholics to disagree with that consensus. Even in the rare case in which a Catholic may think that the consensus is wrong, it is not permissible to freely distribute such ideas until the Holy See has time review it and allow such an idea. Do you agree with this?

4. It is not for Catholics who have no approved training or permission from the Church to improve on matters which have the general agreement of the theologians. If a Catholic does see an area in which he thinks he can either contradict the theologians or improve upon them, it is for that Catholic to make his case to the authorities of the Church and be given approval before publishing it or speaking of it publicly.

5. Regarding dogmatic teaching of the magisterium: It is the approved theologians whose explanations of the dogma that give the explanation of how the dogma is to be understood. It is not for unauthorized priests or laity to create new ideas about the dogma and then publish it. If a Catholic thinks the dogma has not been understood properly by the theologians, then he must first have his ideas examined by the lawful authorities of the Church. Any attempt to publish ideas contrary to the consensus of the theologians on their explanation to the dogmas of the Church without permission from the lawful Church authorities is forbidden. Do you agree with this?

Application of these principles:

1. The theologians teach that bishops lose their jurisdiction through heresy, apostasy, and schism. They do not teach that they lose jurisdiction for wrongly adhering to a false claimant. Do you agree that if you teach this idea you have created a new idea not taught by the theologians? Do you agree that you have created a new area of theology which lacks approval from the Holy See?

2. The Vatican Council teaches that the pastors and doctors must continue to exist until the end of the world. The theologians and other approved Catholic writers who have spoken on this matter all explain this teaching that the successors of the apostles, (the hierarchy) must continue until the end of the world. In my opinion, the Vatican Council's teaching on this is clear and irrefutable, but for those who wish to interpret it differently as you and others seem to do, you face a second roadblock. You place yourself against the the consensus of the theologians who all explain it the same way that John Lane, myself and many others understand it. In addition, a third level to this is that this teaching has been taught and believed always and everywhere either explicitly or implicitly, as shown by the numerous approved Catholic writings on the subject.

Do you agree that the Vatican Council's teaching on this subject is clear and understandable, saying that the hierarchy (the pastors and doctors), must continue to exist until the end of the world? Do you believe that if there is a time when the hierarchy ceases to exist, then the Church would have ended, and the dogma is contradicted? Do you believe that any attempt to create a new teaching from this directly contradicts the teaching of the Vatican Council, the consensus of the theologians on the matter, and the universal belief among all Catholics in every age on the matter, even if that belief was only implicit due to not thinking about it and taking it for granted?

I am not trying to interrogate you by these questions, but I do believe that your answers to them will narrow down the points to where we agree and disagree so we can better focus our time.

You remain in my prayers.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:45 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 !

Mike posted
Quote:
I am trying to understand your argument. Do you think it is better to use loose and imprecise terminology?


Mike, well as I am the king of typo's and poor sentence structure, not to mention I also forget to comb my hair at times.... maybe sloppy is good :)

But indeed we don’t want to get sloppy about terms. However, I don’t think we have to be absolute about this given topic. Have you considered for example; bishops in partibus infidelium (titular)? They have no ordinary jurisdiction, yet with their valid Episcopal Holy Orders we do refer to them as "successors of the apostles". Also the bishops emeritus, they no longer have ordinary jurisdiction, but the same term can be applied.

When it comes up with fellow catholics, me thinks in the proper context , the traditional Bishops with Valid Holy Orders, can also in the general sense of their Episcopal orders, be referred to a " successors of the apostles " without ordinary jurisdiction. Regarding the schismatic Eastern bishops, the Church has treated them with the Episcopal dignity. There has been no “Apostolicae Curae” nullifying their Holy Orders like those of the Anglican hierarchy.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:32 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
The difficulty here is that some of these terms are not able to be transferred from doctrinal thesis to doctrinal thesis univocally.

Sorry, let me put that in simple terms. :)

A Successor of the Apostles is a bishop who has been authorised by the Holy See in some manner. He has been given a canonical mission. He has been "sent". This mission is not withdrawn when a bishop retires. He remains a Successor of the Apostles.

The doctrine of the apostolic succession requires true "doctors and pastors" - which means residential bishops. Bishops that are official Teachers in the Church, and official Rulers in the Church. So it won't suffice to find "Successors of the Apostles" in just any sense, but strictly those who have the full ordinary powers of the Apostles.

Quote:
The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223)
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
(Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)


As Wilhelm and Scannell say:
Quote:
The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him – it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony.


What is the Teaching Body? The bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction, under the Roman Pontiff.

Tanquerey:
Quote:
The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium.


Van Noort:
Quote:
Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:05 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- So titular Bishops are not "successors of the apostles" in ANY sense?

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:25 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:
Pax Christi !

John- So titular Bishops are not "successors of the apostles" in ANY sense?

In Xto,
Vincent


Well, titulars are of at least two, possibly more, kinds. Bishops who retire are given a titular see, so they are Successors of the Apostles, but auxiliaries are also given titular sees, and they are not strictly Successors of the Apostles.

The one kind of bishop that certainly could never fit the definition is the traditional bishop we're all familiar with.

This is not a criticism of them, just an observation of fact.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:35 am
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- Many thanks for the reply. Did any titular bishops- without ordinary jurisdiction ever vote at Vatican 1? Vatican II?

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:31 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince, I can't recall what they decided at Vatican I, but it was clear that the ordinaries and abbots nullius were to be invited with deliberative votes, and the question was whether the auxiliaries etc. should be invited, and if so, whether they would have a vote. In the Code it is left that if they are invited, they are to be given a vote, but that doesn't really help.

Look it up in Butler's history of the Vatican Council if you have access to a copy. If not, I'll try and check later.

But it's all completely irrelevant to the status of our traditional bishops. They don't even have a titular see, or approval of any kind by Rome. They are "super-priests".

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:55 am
Profile E-mail

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

Quote:
When it comes up with fellow catholics, me thinks in the proper context , the traditional Bishops with Valid Holy Orders, can also in the general sense of their Episcopal orders, be referred to a " successors of the apostles " without ordinary jurisdiction. Regarding the schismatic Eastern bishops, the Church has treated them with the Episcopal dignity. There has been no “Apostolicae Curae” nullifying their Holy Orders like those of the Anglican hierarchy.


Dear Vincent,

John has been good enough to join this and answer the other points you brought up, but I have a few thoughts also. It seems to me that you have been exposed to "respectable" traditional bishops, and due to this you may have formed some judgments about all of them. One traditional bishop that stands out in my mind who is a sedevacantist and has conducted himself with dignity and honor has been Bp. Pivarunas. He quietly goes about his work trying to save souls and "fill in" during the temporary absence of most of the hierarchy.

But, Vincent, you are educated and know that you cannot argue a particular to a universal. Because some traditional bishops understand their role during this crisis, does not mean that we should exaggerate the concept of traditional bishops. Have you ever read Terrence Boyle's site listing the episcopal lines of hundreds of bishops, many of whom could be called "traditional bishops" http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html Actually, this list is not updated, and therefore not comprehensive. For example, I found out a few days ago that Fr. Ramolla formerly of the St. Gertrude's group became a bishop: http://athanasiusofalexandria.blogspot. ... h-and.html

To become a traditional bishop, no mission is necessary, as they are not sent by the pope either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, any of the bishops listed on Boyle's site, who are validly ordained/consecrated and are Catholic would have equal status as "traditional bishops." ( As an aside, it would be interesting to update that list, I am sure there would be many more since it was last updated in 2007.)

I do not think many Catholics have sorted this out in their mind. I understand the logic and the argument supporting the idea of traditional bishops, but, there are grave dangers to this as well. What if one valid bishop on the list I gave you began to have irrational fears about the state of the Church, and began consecrating any layman who wanted to be consecrated? They would meet the basic criteria of what a traditional bishop is: Catholic and have valid episcopal orders. We could end up with hundreds of new traditional bishops. Can you not see the extreme dangers to all of this?

I think a good exercise would be how to define a tradiitonal bishop. Most tend to support only one group of Catholics. Some will not administer sacraments to Catholics outside of their group. Some are there to help all Catholics. Some we can say have certainly valid lines, others I would say are questionable. But, the one common thread to all of them is that none of them has any mission from the Church. I think an entire paper could be written sorting this all out. There are so many distinctions that would have to be made, along with judgments sorting out whose orders are valid and whose are not, which one's are respectable and which are not, etc.

The hierarchy of the Church differs from these bishops in that they are sent from the Church. Their mission to teach, govern and sanctify has been directly given by the Church. They are collectively the Apostle's successors. Unlike the traditional bishops, there are not judgments to be made about the hierarchy. We owe them our allegiance, respect and prayers automatically without judgment and reservation. They, have their commission from the Church and have the power to end this crisis. They can at any time call for an imperfect council, declare a state of sedevacante and elect a pope.

You may ask, what would become of the traditional bishops? I am sure the traditional bishops that loved their Catholic Faith, demonstrated great charity towards all Catholics during this crisis, and to the best of their ability used their extraordinary status to save souls, not of any group of Catholics but all Catholics, would more than likely have a place in the future Church. Our future pope will need trusted bishops to govern the many dioceses throughout the world. He will also need loyal and trusted bishops in his curia, and lastly, he will need cardinals to elect future popes.

Just my opinion on one last issue here: I highly doubt the current groups of "traditional" Catholics such as the SSPX, CMRI, etc., will exist for very long after a new pope is elected. I think these organizations will most likely die with this crisis, and with a new pope, we will see miracles again, boundless vocations again, and the rebuilding of our religious orders.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:31 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !


John- Many thanks for the reply. Did any titular bishops- without ordinary jurisdiction ever vote at Vatican 1? Vatican II?

In Xto,
Vincent



Quote:
ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, Rev. S. B. SMITH, D.D. 1887

Not all persons, however, who are invited to the Council have a right to a decisive vote. For to cast a decisive vote is to concur in making laws for the province or nation, and is therefore an act of episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Hence, by the general law of the Church, only those have a decisive vote who exercise episcopal jurisdiction in the province or nation, namely:

1 The bishops of the province or nation; 2. Apostolic administrators of dioceses; 3. Vicars-apostolic of districts; 4. Vicars-capitulars or administrators of dioceses 5. Abbots possessed of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over the secular clergy and laity in a certain part of the province or nation.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:31 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 !

John posted :
Quote:
Well, titulars are of at least two, possibly more, kinds. Bishops who retire are given a titular see, so they are Successors of the Apostles, but auxiliaries are also given titular sees, and they are not strictly Successors of the Apostles.



I am not refering to tradtional bishops here.
Bishops emeritus no longer have ordinary jurisdiction..correct? And it appears Titular bishops who do not have jurisdiction have been invited to councils to " vote".....

super priest is not a term I have ever read in any of the books...I might have missed it though.
In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:21 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'll post some texts from various traditional bishops, explaining it in their own words.

Yes, you're quite right, "super-priests" is a complete invention. That's why it's in quote marks. :) And it describes a completely unprecedented creature - a Catholic bishop without a mission from the Church. So we can't use a traditional term, which is rather what this discussion is about. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
OK, here's a thread IA where much of the relevant material has already been posted: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... topic=9693

Quote:
Archbishop Lefebvre explaining that his bishops are not claiming ordinary jurisdiction:

We are striving to act in such a way that we cannot be reproached with the bishops' being given a territorial jurisdiction, in such a way that there is no bishop being attributed to such and such a territory. Of course, it's only normal that a French bishop should go to France, and that a German-speaking bishop should go to Germany, but from time to time, we try to bring about an exchange in order to head off that accusation. Of course, it is normal that in the United States, Bishop Williamson should give the confirmations. But Bishop Fellay went to give confirmations in St. Mary's, Kansas, and so one cannot say that the United States are the domain of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay also went to South Africa which had previously been visited by Bishop Williamson. As for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he went to South America and to Zaitzkofen in Germany. So, we are striving to establish this principle, that there is no territorial jurisdiction.

http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre ... ations.htm


Quote:
From Fideliter:

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)

Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us - which he could not give us - and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."

Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circumstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.

Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?

Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...

Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.


Quote:
Bishop Daniel Dolan stated in an interview: “We don’t claim to possess any ordination jurisdiction or the power of excommunication. We have moral authority, but we don’t boss people around. We’re sacramental bishops, and traditionalist communities simply can’t survive for very long without sacramental bishops.”


Quote:
Bishop Sanborn, Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, June 7, 2002

As I mentioned to you in my previous letter, on June 19th I am to be consecrated a bishop. I look forward to this with a certain joy and yet with a certain apprehension. The cause for joy is that an episcopal consecration, like a priestly ordination, means the continuation of the Church's sacramental powers, the chief means of saving souls. This continuation is necessary in all times of the Church's history, but is especially necessary in these times, when the priesthood and episcopacy are all but extinct, due to the ravages of the Novus Ordo. It would be an unthinkable negligence to permit the cessation of the Catholic priesthood for lack of validly consecrated bishops.

The cause for apprehension is that the episcopacy is a greater power, and therefore carries a greater responsibility. In a way, however, I already have this responsibility. Since bishops do not have to govern dioceses, their great responsibility today is to ordain worthy candidates to the priesthood. Since I am already deeply involved in the training of priests, I feel that my responsibilities will not change substantially. For the rector of the seminary is the one whom the ordaining bishop trusts when the candidate comes before him at the ordination ceremony. In many cases the ordaining bishop has never seen the candidate before, but merely places confidence in the judgement of the rector and in the training which he and the seminary faculty has given to the young man.

The bishop must also select priests to consecrate as bishops, when the necessity arises, and this too is a serious responsibility.

Bishops in these times are not truly dignitaries, since they are not appointed by the ecclesiastical authority. Bishops today function merely as priests do, that is, they are there in the emergency of Vatican II to provide sacraments to the people. The only difference is that bishops may give more sacraments than priests, and therefore their service to the Mystical Body of Christ is augmented. They merely have more to do.

St. Thomas says that the episcopacy is an extension of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is something like putting an extra room on an existing house. The priesthood is a power over the real body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and the episcopacy is a power over the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, the Church. The bishop can ordain and consecrate, and in such a way sees to the extension and continuation of the Mystical Body of Christ. Because bishops have a sacramental power which relates to the Mystical Body of Christ, in ordinary times they have jurisdiction, the ability to make laws, and are dignitaries. Even auxiliary bishops, who had no jurisdiction, were given titular sees, ancient dioceses which no longer had any Catholics in them, to show the connection of the bishop to the governance of the Mystical Body. In our times, however, traditional bishops and priests lack the power to nominate to episcopal sees, even titular ones, and the function of the bishop is limited to sacramental powers.

In the final analysis, therefore, the episcopacy merely means the assignment of more work to do for the glory of God. May God grant me the grace to do this work efficaciously, to use the power of the holy episcopacy only for the glory of God and His Church, and to solidify others in their Faith and to edify them in the practice of virtue.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
One has to wonder if these positions are still held by the non-SSPX bishops mentioned above ...

http://www.latinmassnewmexico.com/index.html


Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Robert, I think that may have been edited since you last looked at it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
Our episcopally approved, traditional Catholic Mass ...


Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:27 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
OK, I thought it must have referred to Bishop Dolan as a Successor of the Apostles. Not that it matters - Fr. Cekada is on record calling him that on several occasions.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
OK, I thought it must have referred to Bishop Dolan as a Successor of the Apostles. Not that it matters - Fr. Cekada is on record calling him that on several occasions.

I'm not certain, but I don't think they've changed the content of the website. Certain individuals are very sensitive to it (latinmassnewmexico) being brought up, as I found out on IA. It seems they believe the "information" provided on the site, yet they don't want it discussed in public.


Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:56 am
Profile

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

A cordial greeting to you.

I am going to respond to your last post, but I would like put forth some questions before I do. I think on some of these subject we are talking past each other, and we need to establish some "first principles" to guide our discussion. I am hoping that we can clarify better our method of learning from the Church, so we can begin "speaking the same language." (and I am not referring to English and Italian :) )

Principles

1. Do you believe that Catholics should humbly learn from the theologians, especially when there is a consensus on a subject? Secondly, on this same subject, do you believe that Catholics should expand on the teachings of the theologians by adopting opinions which are not approved by the teaching authority of the Church?

2. Do you agree with these facts about theologians: They are trained in seminaries and universities under the direct authority of the Church. The writings of the theologians are scrutinized by other theologians, meaning that if any of them teach an error it would be detected. Lastly, the writings of the theologians are carefully studied and approved by the authority of the Church, by the bishops, the heads of the religious orders and the Holy See.

3. When there is a consensus among theologians it is not generally permissible for Catholics to disagree with that consensus. Even in the rare case in which a Catholic may think that the consensus is wrong, it is not permissible to freely distribute such ideas until the Holy See has time review it and allow such an idea. Do you agree with this?

4. It is not for Catholics who have no approved training or permission from the Church to improve on matters which have the general agreement of the theologians. If a Catholic does see an area in which he thinks he can either contradict the theologians or improve upon them, it is for that Catholic to make his case to the authorities of the Church and be given approval before publishing it or speaking of it publicly.

5. Regarding dogmatic teaching of the magisterium: It is the approved theologians whose explanations of the dogma that give the explanation of how the dogma is to be understood. It is not for unauthorized priests or laity to create new ideas about the dogma and then publish it. If a Catholic thinks the dogma has not been understood properly by the theologians, then he must first have his ideas examined by the lawful authorities of the Church. Any attempt to publish ideas contrary to the consensus of the theologians on their explanation to the dogmas of the Church without permission from the lawful Church authorities is forbidden. Do you agree with this?

Application of these principles:

1. The theologians teach that bishops lose their jurisdiction through heresy, apostasy, and schism. They do not teach that they lose jurisdiction for wrongly adhering to a false claimant. Do you agree that if you teach this idea you have created a new idea not taught by the theologians? Do you agree that you have created a new area of theology which lacks approval from the Holy See?

2. The Vatican Council teaches that the pastors and doctors must continue to exist until the end of the world. The theologians and other approved Catholic writers who have spoken on this matter all explain this teaching that the successors of the apostles, (the hierarchy) must continue until the end of the world. In my opinion, the Vatican Council's teaching on this is clear and irrefutable, but for those who wish to interpret it differently as you and others seem to do, you face a second roadblock. You place yourself against the the consensus of the theologians who all explain it the same way that John Lane, myself and many others understand it. In addition, a third level to this is that this teaching has been taught and believed always and everywhere either explicitly or implicitly, as shown by the numerous approved Catholic writings on the subject.

Do you agree that the Vatican Council's teaching on this subject is clear and understandable, saying that the hierarchy (the pastors and doctors), must continue to exist until the end of the world? Do you believe that if there is a time when the hierarchy ceases to exist, then the Church would have ended, and the dogma is contradicted? Do you believe that any attempt to create a new teaching from this directly contradicts the teaching of the Vatican Council, the consensus of the theologians on the matter, and the universal belief among all Catholics in every age on the matter, even if that belief was only implicit due to not thinking about it and taking it for granted?

I am not trying to interrogate you by these questions, but I do believe that your answers to them will narrow down the points to where we agree and disagree so we can better focus our time.

You remain in my prayers.


Dear Mike,

I will apologize for the delay but I was on holiday without the personal computer.

The consensus of the theologians in the field that we are examining (the existence in act of the apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time) are very strong and I feel bound to their teaching.

I'm just trying to analyze in the best way possible the current situation of the Church, also with listening to the scholars who - unlike the theologians of the past - are living and can directly know about this situation.

I do not remember if you share the opinion of John Lane according to which the nature of Vatican II makes this Council non-binding, but if it is so, what makes me a little smile is that you (Mike and John) rightly remind me that the consensus of theologians is binding and, at the same time, you try to justify Bp. Lefebvre, saying that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (the Vatican II) are non-binding.

However, now that you know what I think of the consensus of the theologians, you can answer to the questions that I have posed to you in my precedent post. I'm interested to know your opinion.

A very cordial greeting.


Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:38 pm
Profile E-mail

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


I quoted Fr. Zapelena s.j. for to say that the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy.


Sorry to jump in :)

Carissimo Gabriele, where does Zapelena say that "the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy".

Sure you don`t mean this do you?

Quote:
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]”.


Cristian



Dear Cristian,

I took the quote of Fr. Zapelena s.j. from the article of Fr. Ricossa that I have posted above. From the article is clear that the conclusion for which the principle of "moral continuity" is valid also for the Episcopacy, it is a conclusion of Fr. Ricossa.

A cordial greeting


Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele wrote:


I quoted Fr. Zapelena s.j. for to say that the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy.


Sorry to jump in :)

Carissimo Gabriele, where does Zapelena say that "the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy".

Sure you don`t mean this do you?

Quote:
Please, consider what it says Fr. Zapelena s.j. on the succession in the Papacy: “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]”.


Cristian



Dear Cristian,

I took the quote of Fr. Zapelena s.j. from the article of Fr. Ricossa that I have posted above. From the article is clear that the conclusion for which the principle of "moral continuity" is valid also for the Episcopacy, it is a conclusion of Fr. Ricossa.

A cordial greeting


Hi Gabriele,

My question is, is that conclusion taken from Zapelena himself or not? Did Zapalena equate those two things? If so, please provide the quote. I know (actually I knew it already since I read that article several years ago) that is the conclusion of Fr Ricossa (as well as Fr Cekada and I think Bp Sanborn as well), but the question is if it is what Zapelena concludes.

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:17 pm
Profile E-mail

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

My question is, is that conclusion taken from Zapelena himself or not? Did Zapalena equate those two things? If so, please provide the quote. I know (actually I knew it already since I read that article several years ago) that is the conclusion of Fr Ricossa (as well as Fr Cekada and I think Bp Sanborn as well), but the question is if it is what Zapelena concludes.


As far as I know, Zapelena speaks only of the Papacy. So I don't know if for him the same principle is valid for Episcopacy.


Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Hi Gabriele,

My question is, is that conclusion taken from Zapelena himself or not? Did Zapalena equate those two things? If so, please provide the quote. I know (actually I knew it already since I read that article several years ago) that is the conclusion of Fr Ricossa (as well as Fr Cekada and I think Bp Sanborn as well), but the question is if it is what Zapelena concludes.


As far as I know, Zapelena speaks only of the Papacy. So I don't know if for him the same principle is valid for Episcopacy.


Good! So I guess Mike doesn´t need to respond your previous objection taken from Zapelena! :)

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:23 pm
Profile E-mail

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

My question is, is that conclusion taken from Zapelena himself or not? Did Zapalena equate those two things? If so, please provide the quote. I know (actually I knew it already since I read that article several years ago) that is the conclusion of Fr Ricossa (as well as Fr Cekada and I think Bp Sanborn as well), but the question is if it is what Zapelena concludes.


As far as I know, Zapelena speaks only of the Papacy. So I don't know if for him the same principle is valid for Episcopacy.


Good! So I guess Mike doesn´t need to respond your previous objection taken from Zapelena! :)


Dear Cristian,

I will try to deepen the thought of Zapelena about the Episcopacy. If - by virtue of the consensus of the theologians - he probably retained that for the Episcopacy at least two bishops (pastors and doctors, said the Magisterium) with power of jurisdiction must to remain living and must to exercise this apostolical power until the end of the time; on the other hand, it would be very strange that for him the principle of the continuity in the succession is different between the Holy See and the episcopal sees.

I will try to understand.

And for you, Cristian, in general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is the visibility of the Church nowadays?

A cordial greeting.


Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear Cristian,

And for you, Cristian, in general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is the visibility of the Church nowadays?

A cordial greeting.


I have no idea where is the Apostolicity! :) For me it is enough to know that if it must exist, then it does exist. I´m not avoiding the topic, just saying what I think. I don´t have all the answers :mrgreen:
We are living and being actors of misterious and hard times, times I like very much on the other hand!
Theologians say that the notes of the Church may be reduced to a minimum (specially in the end times), so no wonder we are facing all this chaos.

God bless you.

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:17 pm
Profile E-mail

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

And for you, Cristian, in general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is the visibility of the Church nowadays?

A cordial greeting.


I have no idea where is the Apostolicity! :) For me it is enough to know that if it must exist, then it does exist. I´m not avoiding the topic, just saying what I think. I don´t have all the answers :mrgreen:
We are living and being actors of misterious and hard times, times I like very much on the other hand!
Theologians say that the notes of the Church may be reduced to a minimum (specially in the end times), so no wonder we are facing all this chaos.

God bless you.


And what is the minimum for visibility?


Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Dear Cristian,

And for you, Cristian, in general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is the visibility of the Church nowadays?

A cordial greeting.


I have no idea where is the Apostolicity! :) For me it is enough to know that if it must exist, then it does exist. I´m not avoiding the topic, just saying what I think. I don´t have all the answers :mrgreen:
We are living and being actors of misterious and hard times, times I like very much on the other hand!
Theologians say that the notes of the Church may be reduced to a minimum (specially in the end times), so no wonder we are facing all this chaos.

God bless you.


And what is the minimum for visibility?


mmm I don`t know, perhaps this is the minimum :)
I`m not sure. Fenton, for example, says that the Church is visible because the requirements for membership are exterior, whereas other theologians explain it in terms of material-formal visibility, etc. To be franck this is a topic I`ve not devoted much time. Perhaps someone here may help us?

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

Leon Bloy


Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:55 am
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 posted

Quote:
Yes, you're quite right, "super-priests" is a complete invention. That's why it's in quote marks. And it describes a completely unprecedented creature - a Catholic bishop without a mission from the Church. So we can't use a traditional term, which is rather what this discussion is about.


John- Many thanks for posting the quotes from some of the respectable traditional Bishops. My impulse to post on this topic is to stimulate a catharsis from persons with extensive book knowledge, which I do not possess, in order to actually posit a thesis from the Sede perspective on the current state of the Church.

On one hand we sede's cite " epikeia " to attend traditional mass centers ( can't call them chapels) :)... but when it comes to the very clergy we receive the most precious gifts from Our Lord, we cite the strict rule of the law i.e. “ they are not sent”, they are not in any SENSE “ Successors of the apostles” from theologians that were writing when the church was functioning in normal fashion. In other words, these times , for the most part , were not predicted in the books ! Some prophesy were… but that is another matter.

As this crisis continues to unfold, recall that the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was the first birthday of the Church militant. I am finding it hard to say that the " respectable" Traditional bishops are not somehow sent by the Holy Ghost to be " successors of the apostles" of course without ordinary jurisdiction. In these times I believe the Holy Ghost is very active in calling men to the true preisthood, and also men to the Episcopal Holy Orders.

Perhaps I am completely ignorant in even positing this possibility. But, I find it a bit interesting that even before Vatican II, some titular bishops were called to vote at Ecumenical Councils of the Church…..And you John in our present times, by following the books to the letter, still had to come up with the completely novel term for traditional bishops- “ super priests”……. I think we all might be missing something….
We need a good theisis.


In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:18 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
mmm I don`t know, perhaps this is the minimum :)
I`m not sure. Fenton, for example, says that the Church is visible because the requirements for membership are exterior, whereas other theologians explain it in terms of material-formal visibility, etc. To be franck this is a topic I`ve not devoted much time. Perhaps someone here may help us?


One thing can exist without being visible (apostolicity). But one thing can not be visible without being visible (visibility).
And if we do not want to deny the visibility of the Church, under the aspect of the power of jurisdiction, we must to indicate where the power of jurisdiction is exercised, where this apostolic power is visible.
About me visibility is not a note of the Church. Apostolicity is it. Perhaps we can say that she is an aspect of apostolicity. I don't know.
The Church remain visible in her faithful, in her sacraments, but not in her hierarchy until someone indicates where are her "pastors and doctors".
I'm just thinking about these things, without imposing a particular idea.

A cordial greeting.


Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:38 am
Profile E-mail

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

I will apologize for the delay but I was on holiday without the personal computer.

The consensus of the theologians in the field that we are examining (the existence in act of the apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time) are very strong and I feel bound to their teaching.

I'm just trying to analyze in the best way possible the current situation of the Church, also with listening to the scholars who - unlike the theologians of the past - are living and can directly know about this situation.

I do not remember if you share the opinion of John Lane according to which the nature of Vatican II makes this Council non-binding, but if it is so, what makes me a little smile is that you (Mike and John) rightly remind me that the consensus of theologians is binding and, at the same time, you try to justify Bp. Lefebvre, saying that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (the Vatican II) are non-binding.

However, now that you know what I think of the consensus of the theologians, you can answer to the questions that I have posed to you in my precedent post. I'm interested to know your opinion.

A very cordial greeting.


Dear Gabriele,

I hope you enjoyed your holiday! A cordial greeting to you as well, and thank you for your comments. Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's ideas about Vatican II or any of his ideas, I would need to see his exact words before commenting. I think there are perceptions of the Archbishop and there is the reality of him as well. It is important to sort the two out.

Generally speaking though, I think you would agree with this:

1. When a Catholic hears heresy or error, the first duty is to reject it. A Catholic may be illogical in how he resists it, and may be clumsy in his theology, but what is first and foremost is that he must reject it and keep his faith.
2. The second part of this process is to try to understand what happened. Many questions may arise. Was the person teaching the heresy aware of what he was saying? How could a pope teach heresy or error publicly in an apparently binding way? Did I understand the person I believe to be in error, i.e. is there a misunderstanding of terms? Is the matter not clear in my mind, so that I need more data before making a judgment, etc.

For myself, I say that Vatican II is non-binding, due it not coming from the Church. For Archbishop Lefebvre, I would need to read his words. But, without looking at his exact statement, let me posit that if a Catholic has followed the first step but is stuck on the second step, then he is still behaving as a Catholic.

I think it may be worthwhile to post the statement from Archbishop Lefebvre that you are thinking of on a new thread and we can work through it.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !


John posted

Quote:
Yes, you're quite right, "super-priests" is a complete invention. That's why it's in quote marks. And it describes a completely unprecedented creature - a Catholic bishop without a mission from the Church. So we can't use a traditional term, which is rather what this discussion is about.


John- Many thanks for posting the quotes from some of the respectable traditional Bishops. My impulse to post on this topic is to stimulate a catharsis from persons with extensive book knowledge, which I do not possess, in order to actually posit a thesis from the Sede perspective on the current state of the Church.

On one hand we sede's cite " epikeia " to attend traditional mass centers ( can't call them chapels) :)... but when it comes to the very clergy we receive the most precious gifts from Our Lord, we cite the strict rule of the law i.e. “ they are not sent”, they are not in any SENSE “ Successors of the apostles” from theologians that were writing when the church was functioning in normal fashion. In other words, these times , for the most part , were not predicted in the books ! Some prophesy were… but that is another matter.

As this crisis continues to unfold, recall that the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was the first birthday of the Church militant. I am finding it hard to say that the " respectable" Traditional bishops are not somehow sent by the Holy Ghost to be " successors of the apostles" of course without ordinary jurisdiction. In these times I believe the Holy Ghost is very active in calling men to the true preisthood, and also men to the Episcopal Holy Orders.

Perhaps I am completely ignorant in even positing this possibility. But, I find it a bit interesting that even before Vatican II, some titular bishops were called to vote at Ecumenical Councils of the Church…..And you John in our present times, by following the books to the letter, still had to come up with the completely novel term for traditional bishops- “ super priests”……. I think we all might be missing something….
We need a good theisis.


In Xto,
Vincent


Dear Vincent,

I hope all is well. A few comments if I may:

You make the distinction between respectable traditional bishops so I am presuming you recognize the existence of non-respectable traditional bishops. But, this is not defined. First, we need to define what a traditional bishop is. The only criteria that I can come up with is that the bishop is a Catholic male who has valid episcopal orders. Second, we should be specific about what constitutes a respectable bishop from one who is not, and when we do that how it changes the bishop's status. Or, as I believe, they have no status to begin with, as the Church has given them no office, so that when a Catholic follows them, it is not as a bishop, but as a Catholic, who, despite no commission from the Church is holy, educated and is a natural leader, and due to that he is worthy to follow at least provisionally.

By the way, I believe that Archbishops Lefebvre's belief that the society bishops should not become the superior of the order was to prevent this danger in the first place. I am not by that criticizing Bishop Fellay. Perhaps he believes that he by expressly denying jurisdiction, is sufficient to protect Catholics from thinking that the Society bishops are something more than they are.

If you believe that these bishops are successors to the Apostles, you would have to believe that the consensus of the theologians is wrong, as they teach that the mission is necessary. I am not here arguing that traditional bishops cannot exist. What I am saying and I think John as well, is that Catholics need to distinguish between traditional bishops vs. bishops sent from the Church. They are not the same thing.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:16 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 !

Mike- We appear to keep talking past each other. So there is no need to keep this going. Regarding the definition of a traditional bishop, it would of course be a male, of the proper age, with Valid Holy Orders. For what makes a "respectable", I would think they are the ones with the actual proper theology training and years of experience as a priest, ( not a freshly ordained young priest ( some with less then 2 years of seminary training) that within days of his ordination seeks and receives Episcopal Orders.

So perhaps we can also invent this term the " super respectable" bishops- those that behave with holiness and care for souls, and do not claim rights they do not have.

:)

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:11 pm
Profile

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

Sure, I am happy to let this discussion end. I do think, though, that the issues you brought up are important, as many have the same questions you have brought up, and I am happy that we had the chance to discuss them. Btw, I agree with you that there is certainly a difference between respectable and not respectable bishops, and would also say it is possible for a respectable bishop to become not respectable by his conduct.

Even though you are joking, I would say that a super-respectable bishop would act as you said. They know their place in the Church, are learned about their faith, are holy, act as natural leaders and are not usurpers. I can think of a few like this, and I will go with your new word. :)

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:44 pm
Profile

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

Thank you for you thoughts. My replies below.

Gabriele wrote:

Quote:
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to distinguish.
One thing is the theory for which in this particular situation a bishop loses the power of jurisdiction if he is in communion with a non-Pope. Other thing is the theory for which it is possible that the episcopacy can exist only in potentia for a period.
The second theory concerns the indefectibility of the Church and therefore the faith. Not the first.


You are right that there are two separate issues here. To the first, it implicitly contradicts the consensus of the theologians by adding a new category for loss of jurisdiction that was never discussed in any approved book. This new theory of loss of jurisdiction is not taught in Sacred Scripture, Tradition, by the popes, or by any theologian, so why believe it? Why not stay on the safe ground of sound and approved theology? To the Second, you are right that the idea is a defection from the Faith.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Ok, Mike. For you only heresy and schism are causes of loss of jurisdiction.
Note that what you say it is valid also for Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger. They also do not belong to a sect.


I would argue that none of these men ever had universal jurisdiction as pope to begin with. I believe the argument is strong enough to conclude that all three men are heretics, therefore they are not members of the Church, therefore, they immediately lose all jurisdiction. As I stated before, each Catholic in this crisis must be treated as an individual, not as a group, therefore not seen as a member of a non-Catholic sect.

This means that this crisis cannot be dealt with as a simple matter. The mystery of this crisis is that this is not a cut and dry case of Catholics leaving the Church en masse to join a non-Catholic sect. That would make this easy. But, we do not have that. We have a heretical organization that has sought to impose itself on Catholics by making them believe that it was the Catholic Church. In this case, there appears to be a least three relevant groups.

1. Those who embrace the Conciliar church and their heresies and errors. It is possible to determine prior to the judgment of the Church that these people are heretics and have severed themselves from the Church. This is a difficult thing to do, but it is possible. John Daly wrote an excellent article on this years ago. http://strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html In the case of claimants of the papal office, however, we have an additional way of determining if they are a pope. Popes are not able to officially teach error or promulgate evil laws.

2. Those who explicitly reject the Conciliar church. This would be all Catholics who either completely or at least in practice do not adhere to the teachings and laws of the Conciliar church.

3. Those who are Catholic, due to keeping the Faith, and who adhere to the Conciliar church and their office holders only due to mistakenly believing that this is the Catholic Church.

Group 1 are heretics and schismatics. Groups 2 and 3 are Catholic and are members of the Church. Group 3 is in the most danger, since they are the easiest target for the modernists.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
One thing is the possession of the power, other thing is the exercise of the power. If I don’t remember wrong, several theologians upon which you make reference for the issue that we discuss, they say that the power of jurisdiction will be exercised by the bishops until the end of the time. It is not sufficient to have the power. It is necessary to exercise it. And in the example that you have made, Father X does not exercise his power of pastor until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation.


I have never heard this argument before. It would seem to me that an office holder has the power whether or not he is actively using it, so I am not sure this is a valid argument. If a bishop was sick and incapacitated for a period of time, does he maintain jurisdiction due to his not actively using his powers as bishop? Likewise, if a bishop was imprisoned, and unable to communicate with his diocese, he would still remain the shepherd of that diocese. In both cases he is not actively using his authority as bishop in teaching and governing the diocese, but he remains the bishop of the diocese.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
I know that classical theology has identified two causes (heresy and schism) for the loss of jurisdiction. But, do you admit that theological science could not have asked about certain issues? Can you conceive that we are facing a new situation?


I think it is extremely dangerous to leave the theologians and form new ideas, especially when those ideas cannot be scrutinized by the theologians, and the Holy See is not here to be able to review them. The only safe course is to use approved theology to answer the difficulties of the crisis. I agree with you that this disaster is a new situation in the Church, but I also believe that the Church's approved theologians give us the answers to explain it.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
I think that theologians of the past could not have asked about certain issues that we can ask to us nowadays.


The principles given by the theologians of the past can be used to explain the crisis. I think it has been a lack of learning and applying these principles that have made the crisis worse. For example, the hierarchy have had for the entire duration of this crisis the power of ending it but those bishops who have kept the faith have failed to act in council to end this. This has led to the crisis continuing much longer than it had to. Perhaps this is the mystery of this crisis.

The entire focus of the few members of the hierarchy who have done anything to publicly resist the Conciliar church was to preserve the faith and the sacraments for the flock to the greatest extent they could. This is praiseworthy, but what was needed from the hierarchy was for them to use their power as the lawful bishops of the Church, the successors of the Apostles, to call forth a council, declare the seat vacant, and elect a new pope.

The theology of the Church backs up this explanation of how the crisis could have been resolved, and these same principles remain with the remaining members of the hierarchy today.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, it seems to me that you have not understood my intervention. I apologize if I was not clear.
I quoted Fr. Zapelena s.j. for to say that the principle of the “moral continuity” that he put in evidence for the Papacy is valid also for the Episcopacy. In this way, as well as the time that goes between the interregnum does not destroy the monarchical nature of the Church (for to use your words), the time that we live without bishops in act does not destroy the hierarchical nature of the Church. As well as the Papacy is not ended in absence of a living Pope, the Episcopacy is not ended in absence of living bishops.


Cristian has answered this point. Thank you Christian, my friend, for jumping in and resolving this point. :)

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
You may think their reason is fear, but you do not know their reason is fear. You cannot make judgments about that which you do not know.

Can I have my opinion?


Yes, you can have your opinion. :) My apologies. I should have said I am not convinced of your opinion. I do not think either of us will really know, as we do not know them, and we do not have access to their writings, so it is very hard to make a judgment on their motives.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
About visibility. Do you think that the fact of a bishop who externally professes heresy is compatible with the visibility of the Church? We can not say if he is a heretic, on the contrary we are convinced that he maintain Catholic Faith in his heart and that he is not aware to go against the Faith (“Brian Harrison method”). But he externally professes the heresy.


If a bishop professes heresy, knowing that he is in conflict with the teaching of the Church, then he is outside the Church, and therefore has lost his jurisdiction. Catholics can make a judgment about such a man prior to the judgment of the Church, using the rules set forth so well in John Daly's article, posted above.

I think about these bishops that we are referring to, that Catholics avoid making any assumptions. As stated earlier, they must be treated as individuals, not as a collective. To determine if Bishop X is a heretic, you must use valid criteria for forming a judgment: his words, his actions, his writings, which can be from him directly or from those who know him. Since there are good reasons to explain a Catholic adhering to the post Vatican II claimants, other than heresy or schism, that in and of itself is not sufficient for determining that any of these bishops have lost jurisdiction.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
We can think that the visibility of the Church is guaranteed if this is one bishop in the entire Episcopacy (a bishop is not infallible and he may, without awareness, to go for a mistake against a dogma). But in our situation, where it lacks the Pope and the Episcopacy is reduced to a very small number of bishops, do you think that the visibility of the Church would be guaranteed by these bishop if they externally professed the heresy?

The entire episcopate of the world was once 11 bishops counting the Pope. There is no theological reason to believe it could not be reduced even below that number. The visibility of the Church is guaranteed by Catholic bishops. If they are heretics then they have no part in it.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
A cordial greeting

Ps: In general, under the aspect of the apostolic power of jurisdiction, where is about you the visibility of the Church nowadays?


The Church is made of of the bishops with jurisdiction, the hierarchy, the lawfully sent clergy who still have the Faith, the traditional clergy and the laity. The Church is visible, as the members of the hierarchy are still alive and in the world. It is not an invisible Church. The ecclesia docens may be tiny compared to the days of Pius XII, but they are still alive and present in the world. A Catholic could if he had the means identify these bishops by visiting them.

Let me ask you, when the Apostles were in hiding, and Catholics did not know where they were, would you not agree that for that period of time the Church remained visible? The bishops I am speaking of are identifiable and therefore visible. It may be that some have fallen into heresy, but that is not known or at this time provable.

A cordial greeting to you as well. God bless.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:23 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
what makes me a little smile is that you (Mike and John) rightly remind me that the consensus of theologians is binding and, at the same time, you try to justify Bp. Lefebvre, saying that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (the Vatican II) are non-binding.


Gabriele, the question is one of fact, not necessarily of theology. Vatican II was unique. The question is, how different was it to a general council, and in what points?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Most of the bishops ordained by Pius XII are dead. Vatican 2 anti-popes cannot give jurisdiction to bishops. Otherwise you are saying that heretics who do not have office have jurisdiction and can pass it on.

Paul VI brought in the invalid new rite of consecration in 1968. That rules out most if not all of the western 'bishops'. Soon there will no valid bishops in the west bar traditional groups.

Ratzo was 'consecrated' under the new rite; likely further anti-popes will have been. Only a bishop can have jurisdiction; only a pope bishop can pass it on. Otherwise you are saying that an heretical layman anti-pope can pass on episcopal jurisdiction - to other laymen. If so then why cant I, Im not the pope either but I would probably qualify better than Ratzo. Why cant the layman at Florida Beach who elected himself pope not set up his own church and have jurisidction if Ratzo can?

Bottom line: the question of jurisdiction has an expiry date for sedes whatever theories one follows.


Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:13 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Most of the bishops ordained by Pius XII are dead.


Was Pius XII the last true pope? If so, why?

Not all of them are dead. An expiry date, as you put it, won't be a problem until it is, since it's a question of contingent fact, not a matter of principle.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Vatican 2 anti-popes cannot give jurisdiction to bishops.


Fr. Miaskiewicz says that false popes would act validly by supplied jurisdiction.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Otherwise you are saying that heretics who do not have office have jurisdiction and can pass it on.


No, I am saying that some acts of false popes may attract supplied jurisdiction. False popes don't have habitual jurisdiction, and cannot have habitual jurisdiction. In this they are no different from a Greek Orthodox priest who is approached by a Catholic in danger of death. His absolution would be valid by supplied jurisdiction. The Greek doesn't have, and cannot have, habitual jurisdiction, but he can, in specific circumstances, act validly when the Church supplies jurisdiction for that act in those circumstances.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Paul VI brought in the invalid new rite of consecration in 1968. That rules out most if not all of the western 'bishops'. Soon there will no valid bishops in the west bar traditional groups.


A layman who is validly appointed to an episcopal office (even the papacy) has ordinary jurisdiction the moment he accepts the appointment. He is obliged to receive orders, but he's bishop already.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Why cant the layman at Florida Beach who elected himself pope not set up his own church and have jurisidction if Ratzo can?


See above. The circumstances are not even similar, let alone parallel! Apart from anything else, there would no common error about the facts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Van Noort, Christ's Church wrote:
Scholion 2. Theory of an extraordinary mission.

Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an "extraordinary mission." To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ's own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule (or reform) the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority.

Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects. The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ's Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption.


Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:46 pm
Profile

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,

I will apologize for the delay but I was on holiday without the personal computer.

The consensus of the theologians in the field that we are examining (the existence in act of the apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time) are very strong and I feel bound to their teaching.

I'm just trying to analyze in the best way possible the current situation of the Church, also with listening to the scholars who - unlike the theologians of the past - are living and can directly know about this situation.

I do not remember if you share the opinion of John Lane according to which the nature of Vatican II makes this Council non-binding, but if it is so, what makes me a little smile is that you (Mike and John) rightly remind me that the consensus of theologians is binding and, at the same time, you try to justify Bp. Lefebvre, saying that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (the Vatican II) are non-binding.

However, now that you know what I think of the consensus of the theologians, you can answer to the questions that I have posed to you in my precedent post. I'm interested to know your opinion.

A very cordial greeting.


Dear Gabriele,

I hope you enjoyed your holiday! A cordial greeting to you as well, and thank you for your comments. Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's ideas about Vatican II or any of his ideas, I would need to see his exact words before commenting. I think there are perceptions of the Archbishop and there is the reality of him as well. It is important to sort the two out.

Generally speaking though, I think you would agree with this:

1. When a Catholic hears heresy or error, the first duty is to reject it. A Catholic may be illogical in how he resists it, and may be clumsy in his theology, but what is first and foremost is that he must reject it and keep his faith.
2. The second part of this process is to try to understand what happened. Many questions may arise. Was the person teaching the heresy aware of what he was saying? How could a pope teach heresy or error publicly in an apparently binding way? Did I understand the person I believe to be in error, i.e. is there a misunderstanding of terms? Is the matter not clear in my mind, so that I need more data before making a judgment, etc.

For myself, I say that Vatican II is non-binding, due it not coming from the Church. For Archbishop Lefebvre, I would need to read his words. But, without looking at his exact statement, let me posit that if a Catholic has followed the first step but is stuck on the second step, then he is still behaving as a Catholic.

I think it may be worthwhile to post the statement from Archbishop Lefebvre that you are thinking of on a new thread and we can work through it.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1309


Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
You are right that there are two separate issues here. To the first, it implicitly contradicts the consensus of the theologians by adding a new category for loss of jurisdiction that was never discussed in any approved book.

It is not true, because to say that in front of two facts (heresy and schism) there is a certain consequence (the loss of jurisdiction), it does not want to say that the same consequence is impossible in front of a third (or fourth or fifth) fact. For to affirm that “by adding a new category” the consensus of the theologians is contradicted you must to demonstrate that the consensus of the theologians says: the only two causes of loss of jurisdiction are absolutely heresy and schism and not others.
Mike wrote:
This new theory of loss of jurisdiction is not taught in Sacred Scripture, Tradition, by the popes, or by any theologian, so why believe it? Why not stay on the safe ground of sound and approved theology? To the Second, you are right that the idea is a defection from the Faith.

The new theory must be rejected, eventually, if it contradicts the consensus of the theologians for which there will be in act pastors and doctors until the end of the time. But not for the fact of the mere addition of a new cause of loss of jurisdiction.

Mike wrote:
I agree that no Catholic take part in a sect, that would obviously sever them from the Church. The question we are discussing is whether they are in fact in a sect. In my opinion, you are simplifying a highly complex issue. If you ask any of these bishops in question, "Have you left the Catholic Church to join the sect called, "the Conciliar Church?" What do you think they would say? If they say they are Catholic, and they continue to believe the Faith, and they have not severed themselves from Peter and his successors, then they are Catholics, and since they are Catholics and are not schismatics or heretics, then they retain their jurisdiction.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Ok, Mike. For you only heresy and schism are causes of loss of jurisdiction.
Note that what you say it is valid also for Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger. They also do not belong to a sect.


I would argue that none of these men ever had universal jurisdiction as pope to begin with. I believe the argument is strong enough to conclude that all three men are heretics, therefore they are not members of the Church, therefore, they immediately lose all jurisdiction. As I stated before, each Catholic in this crisis must be treated as an individual, not as a group, therefore not seen as a member of a non-Catholic sect.

This means that this crisis cannot be dealt with as a simple matter. The mystery of this crisis is that this is not a cut and dry case of Catholics leaving the Church en masse to join a non-Catholic sect. That would make this easy. But, we do not have that. We have a heretical organization that has sought to impose itself on Catholics by making them believe that it was the Catholic Church. In this case, there appears to be a least three relevant groups.

1. Those who embrace the Conciliar church and their heresies and errors. It is possible to determine prior to the judgment of the Church that these people are heretics and have severed themselves from the Church. This is a difficult thing to do, but it is possible. John Daly wrote an excellent article on this years ago. http://strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html In the case of claimants of the papal office, however, we have an additional way of determining if they are a pope. Popes are not able to officially teach error or promulgate evil laws.

2. Those who explicitly reject the Conciliar church. This would be all Catholics who either completely or at least in practice do not adhere to the teachings and laws of the Conciliar church.

3. Those who are Catholic, due to keeping the Faith, and who adhere to the Conciliar church and their office holders only due to mistakenly believing that this is the Catholic Church.

Group 1 are heretics and schismatics. Groups 2 and 3 are Catholic and are members of the Church. Group 3 is in the most danger, since they are the easiest target for the modernists.

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?

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
One thing is the possession of the power, other thing is the exercise of the power. If I don’t remember wrong, several theologians upon which you make reference for the issue that we discuss, they say that the power of jurisdiction will be exercised by the bishops until the end of the time. It is not sufficient to have the power. It is necessary to exercise it. And in the example that you have made, Father X does not exercise his power of pastor until he does not become aware of the truth of the situation.


I have never heard this argument before. It would seem to me that an office holder has the power whether or not he is actively using it, so I am not sure this is a valid argument. If a bishop was sick and incapacitated for a period of time, does he maintain jurisdiction due to his not actively using his powers as bishop? Likewise, if a bishop was imprisoned, and unable to communicate with his diocese, he would still remain the shepherd of that diocese. In both cases he is not actively using his authority as bishop in teaching and governing the diocese, but he remains the bishop of the diocese.

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.

Mike wrote:
I think it is extremely dangerous to leave the theologians and form new ideas, especially when those ideas cannot be scrutinized by the theologians, and the Holy See is not here to be able to review them. The only safe course is to use approved theology to answer the difficulties of the crisis. I agree with you that this disaster is a new situation in the Church, but I also believe that the Church's approved theologians give us the answers to explain it.

To retain the Holy See as totally vacant without the intervention of the Church is, for me, extremely dangerous.

Mike wrote:
The principles given by the theologians of the past can be used to explain the crisis. I think it has been a lack of learning and applying these principles that have made the crisis worse. For example, the hierarchy have had for the entire duration of this crisis the power of ending it but those bishops who have kept the faith have failed to act in council to end this. This has led to the crisis continuing much longer than it had to. Perhaps this is the mystery of this crisis.
The entire focus of the few members of the hierarchy who have done anything to publicly resist the Conciliar church was to preserve the faith and the sacraments for the flock to the greatest extent they could. This is praiseworthy, but what was needed from the hierarchy was for them to use their power as the lawful bishops of the Church, the successors of the Apostles, to call forth a council, declare the seat vacant, and elect a new pope.
The theology of the Church backs up this explanation of how the crisis could have been resolved, and these same principles remain with the remaining members of the hierarchy today.

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.

Mike wrote:
Cristian has answered this point. Thank you Christian, my friend, for jumping in and resolving this point. :)

Thank you (and thanks to Cristian) for to have remember me the consensus of the theologians on that point, dear Mike. As you can see, I have not difficulty to admit my mistakes. About Zapelena, I will try to deepen his thought, because it is not very clear to me.
As I already wrote to Cristian:
I will try to deepen the thought of Zapelena about the Episcopacy. If - by virtue of the consensus of the theologians - he probably retained that for the Episcopacy at least two bishops (pastors and doctors, said the Magisterium) with power of jurisdiction must to remain living and must to exercise this apostolical power until the end of the time; on the other hand, it would be very strange that for him the principle of the continuity in the succession is different between the Holy See and the episcopal sees.
For the moment I have not access to the works of Zapelena.

Mike wrote:
If a bishop professes heresy, knowing that he is in conflict with the teaching of the Church, then he is outside the Church, and therefore has lost his jurisdiction. Catholics can make a judgment about such a man prior to the judgment of the Church, using the rules set forth so well in John Daly's article, posted above.


I know that Bellarmine, concerning heretic bishops, has wrote a different thing (De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib. I De Clericis, cap. 7. Cf. Opera Omnia, C. Pedone Lauriel éditeur, T. II, 1872, p. 159):

« Il est vrai que le peuple doit discerner le vrai prophète du faux, mais non par une autre règle que celle-ci: observer attentivement si celui qui prêche dit le contraire de ce que disaient ses prédécesseurs, ou de ce qui est dit par les autres pasteurs ordinaires, et principalement par le Siège apostolique et l’Église principale; car il est commandé au peuple d’écouter ses pasteurs. Luc X, Qui vous écoute m’écoute. Et Matth. XXIII, faites ce qu’ils vous disent. Le peuple ne doit donc pas juger son pasteur sauf s’il entend des choses nouvelles et étrangères à la doctrine des autres pasteurs ».

Shortly after he adds:

« Il faut observer en outre que le peuple peut certes, par la règle que nous avons posée, discerner le vrai prophète du faux, mais qu’il ne peut pas pour autant déposer le faux pasteur s’il est évêque, et en substituer un autre à sa place. Car le Seigneur et l’apôtre ordonnent seulement que les faux prophètes ne soient pas écoutés par le peuple : mais non pas que le peuple les dépose. Et il est certain que l’usage de l’Église a toujours été que les évêques hérétiques soient déposés par des conciles d’ évêques, ou par les souverains pontifes ».

Mike wrote:
I think about these bishops that we are referring to, that Catholics avoid making any assumptions. As stated earlier, they must be treated as individuals, not as a collective. To determine if Bishop X is a heretic, you must use valid criteria for forming a judgment: his words, his actions, his writings, which can be from him directly or from those who know him. Since there are good reasons to explain a Catholic adhering to the post Vatican II claimants, other than heresy or schism, that in and of itself is not sufficient for determining that any of these bishops have lost jurisdiction.

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

Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
We can think that the visibility of the Church is guaranteed if this is one bishop in the entire Episcopacy (a bishop is not infallible and he may, without awareness, to go for a mistake against a dogma). But in our situation, where it lacks the Pope and the Episcopacy is reduced to a very small number of bishops, do you think that the visibility of the Church would be guaranteed by these bishop if they externally professed the heresy?

The entire episcopate of the world was once 11 bishops counting the Pope. There is no theological reason to believe it could not be reduced even below that number. The visibility of the Church is guaranteed by Catholic bishops. If they are heretics then they have no part in it.

- 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?

Mike wrote:
The Church is made of of the bishops with jurisdiction, the hierarchy, the lawfully sent clergy who still have the Faith, the traditional clergy and the laity. The Church is visible, as the members of the hierarchy are still alive and in the world. It is not an invisible Church. The ecclesia docens may be tiny compared to the days of Pius XII, but they are still alive and present in the world. A Catholic could if he had the means identify these bishops by visiting them.

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?

Mike wrote:
Let me ask you, when the Apostles were in hiding, and Catholics did not know where they were, would you not agree that for that period of time the Church remained visible?

In that period, the Church was visible because everyone knew that the Apostles, forced to hide from persecution, ruled the Church. And they were in contact with the faithful that they ruled. And these faithful knew their Pastors. If one faithful had asked to another faithful where the Pastors were, he would have known. Furthermore, the fruits of apostolic activity were very very visible, as we know.

Mike wrote:
The bishops I am speaking of are identifiable and therefore visible. It may be that some have fallen into heresy, but that is not known or at this time provable.


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

A cordial greeting.


Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:48 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:
what makes me a little smile is that you (Mike and John) rightly remind me that the consensus of theologians is binding and, at the same time, you try to justify Bp. Lefebvre, saying that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council (the Vatican II) are non-binding.


Gabriele, the question is one of fact, not necessarily of theology. Vatican II was unique. The question is, how different was it to a general council, and in what points?


No, dear John. For those who think – as Lefebvre did – that Conciliar “Popes” are true Popes the question is much more grave. Because they must to explain how is it possible that the visible head of the Church, the hierarchy, was able to work for the damage and destruction of the Church (in addition, for fifty years). This is not orthodox. It is not catholic.


Sat Aug 25, 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
Gabriele wrote:
It is not true, because to say that in front of two facts (heresy and schism) there is a certain consequence (the loss of jurisdiction), it does not want to say that the same consequence is impossible in front of a third (or fourth or fifth) fact. For to affirm that “by adding a new category” the consensus of the theologians is contradicted you must to demonstrate that the consensus of the theologians says: the only two causes of loss of jurisdiction are absolutely heresy and schism and not others.


"Positive" heresy is the sin of adding to divine revelation. It is certainly illegitimate to come up with a new reason why jurisdiction would be lost.

You might as well come up with new reasons why sacraments might be invalid, or that men might go to hell. Oh, hang on, you are coming up with new sins...

And why are you looking for new reasons that jurisdiction might be lost? Because your teacher refused to accept the old ones. He didn't believe that a heretic could lose jurisdiction prior to a judgement by the Church; an opinion he taught in the SSPX seminary to men like Donald Sanborn, and which you seem unable to see is the root cause of dogmatic sedeplenism!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
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.

I've heard this before, yet I've always wondered why Bp. Sanborn (and others) do not publicly pray for the conversion of the "materialiter Pope."


Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
It is not true, because to say that in front of two facts (heresy and schism) there is a certain consequence (the loss of jurisdiction), it does not want to say that the same consequence is impossible in front of a third (or fourth or fifth) fact. For to affirm that “by adding a new category” the consensus of the theologians is contradicted you must to demonstrate that the consensus of the theologians says: the only two causes of loss of jurisdiction are absolutely heresy and schism and not others.


"Positive" heresy is the sin of adding to divine revelation. It is certainly illegitimate to come up with a new reason why jurisdiction would be lost.

You might as well come up with new reasons why sacraments might be invalid, or that men might go to hell. Oh, hang on, you are coming up with new sins...

And why are you looking for new reasons that jurisdiction might be lost? Because your teacher refused to accept the old ones. He didn't believe that a heretic could lose jurisdiction prior to a judgement by the Church; an opinion he taught in the SSPX seminary to men like Donald Sanborn, and which you seem unable to see is the root cause of dogmatic sedeplenism!


According to Fr. Guérard and Bp. Sanborn the Conciliar "Popes" have not jurisdiction.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:04 am
Profile E-mail

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

I've heard this before, yet I've always wondered why Bp. Sanborn (and others) do not publicly pray for the conversion of the "materialiter Pope."


Dear Robert, I think that all the good clergy non una cum pray for the conversion of Ratzinger.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
First I've heard of that. Robert's question included the adverb "publicly". Are you alleging that they all do this privately? How do you know?

I've never heard of this before.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:49 am
Profile E-mail

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

A cordial greeting and my replies below.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
It is not true, because to say that in front of two facts (heresy and schism) there is a certain consequence (the loss of jurisdiction), it does not want to say that the same consequence is impossible in front of a third (or fourth or fifth) fact. For to affirm that “by adding a new category” the consensus of the theologians is contradicted you must to demonstrate that the consensus of the theologians says: the only two causes of loss of jurisdiction are absolutely heresy and schism and not others.


Perhaps you have not thought through the implications of your position. This position creates new theology. Novel ideas are dangerous and and must be carefully examined by the Church. When the Church reforms, you should write a paper on why you believe this idea and submit it to the Holy See for examination, but until then, it is gravely imprudent to use untested, unexamined theological ideas that have not been studied by the theologians or approved by the Holy See. Your idea that Catholics on their own initiative, without approval from the Church may develop and innovate novel ideas is reckless and dangerous.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:38 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
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.


Quote:
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.


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


Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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.