It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
 New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptance 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptance
There is currently a discussion on another forum, who has posited some objections against sedevacantism based on the the following:

1. All, or at least a moral unanimity of the remaining bishops accept Benedict XVI's claim.
2. He argues that if we consider the bishops appointed by the Anti-pope as having jurisdiction due to it be supplied, that this would be proof that they are in union with Benedict, as it is their acceptance of him that leads to the act of supplied jurisdiction due to common error in the first place.
3. The poster then argues: "the moral unanimity that exists in the present day under this theory even) in future - the Ecclesia docens or ordinary magisterium throughout the world gives an explicit and infallible witness that the Pope is the Pope."

His arguments and sources are below in the quote. Any thoughts on this one, John?

Quote:

The Sources of Revelation, Msgr Van Noort said:
Quote:
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held



This shows the acceptance of the ordinary magisterium throughout the world is the essential acceptance of the whole Church, for such a moral unanimity already requires an assent of "eccesiastical faith" from the Ecclesia discens. Immediately after the above, Msgr.Noort continues to give the example I quoted from him in my first post.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia on the same,

Catholic Encyclopedia said:
Quote:
But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.


Catholic theologians are agreed in recognising the general principle that has just been stated, but it cannot be said that they are equally unanimous in regard to the concrete applications of this principle. Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as "theological conclusions," i.e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church's infallible authority. (b) It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate


1. Now, if we wish to postulate a 50/54 year sede vacante there are only about 20/15 Bishops today in the world consecrated before the appropriate time who are still even candidates for belonging to the Ecclesia docens. See here. Whether you want to judge they do or do not is a judgment that is up to you, but if not, then the teaching Church has defected, which is impossible. If yes, then the teaching Church with moral unanimity says Pope Benedict XVI is Pope, which refutes the notion we are in an interregnum. There is no way around it.

2. But according to John Lane's theory, which attempts to find one, and with which you agree if I recall right, "jurisdiction is supplied in cases of common error" can apply also to certain unknown Bishops, not in the cases where supplied jurisdiction is given for individual acts, as is traditionally taught, but even that these Bishops receive canonical offices and actual ordinary jurisdiction and teaching authority if they are in "common error" as to whether Pope Benedict XVI is Pope! In this way, John Lane says formal Apostolic succession will somehow continue. Now, this is a fascinating theory, and it has fantastic implications, but taking it entirely for granted here, it still only reinforces the conclusion! For all are agreed one Bishop cannot grant an office to another, so the only candidates for Bishops who can receive this are those who believe Pope Benedict XVI is Pope and this once more shows this notion to be directly self-refuting, even showing the conclusion will always hold (unless perhaps if a Bishop with jurisdiction and teaching office breaks away and becomes a sedevacantist, which is yet to happen but which in any case would not disprove the moral unanimity that exists in the present day under this theory even) in future - the Ecclesia docens or ordinary magisterium throughout the world gives an explicit and infallible witness that the Pope is the Pope.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
It seems to me that whatever Van Noort and other such postulate concerning the Church and its hierarchy must be applied solely to those who are actually, really, and truly Catholics in every sense of the word.

I am reasonably certain that when these respected theologians spoke on this issue, they never dreamed that most of the "bishops" in the world who were "accepted" as such by the generality of truly ignorant "Catholics" are, in fact, apostates and Protestants, to whom none of Van Noort's, et al, teachings would apply.

I also suspect that when we speak of "common error" and "supplied jurisdiction", we are speaking not so much of any of the upper hierarchy, but primarily of those of us "in the trenches", so to speak, and of our spiritual needs.

I think those who use "our" argument of "supplied jurisdiction" against us, are seeing it or applying it "backwards", and don't adequately understand its real purpose.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Mike, wow, what a mess!

First, the fellow is quite confused about a number of elements of theology, and equally confused about the things I have written.

It isn't completely clear what he means when he says, "'jurisdiction is supplied in cases of common error' can apply also to certain unknown Bishops, not in the cases where supplied jurisdiction is given for individual acts, as is traditionally taught, but even that these Bishops receive canonical offices and actual ordinary jurisdiction and teaching authority if they are in 'common error' as to whether Pope Benedict XVI is Pope!"

This seems so thoroughly confused that it's simpler just to state what I believe without trying to disentangle his nonsense.

Here is Bouscaren and Ellis on supplied jurisdiction: "To supply jurisdiction means to give it in the very acts which are placed without jurisdiction from any other source. Hence when jurisdiction is supplied by the Church, the person acting is entirely without jurisdiction both before and after the act in question; he has jurisdiction, supplied by the Church, only in the act itself." Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, 2nd Ed. Bruce, Milwaukee, 1953, p. 141. Emphasis in the original.

Jurisdiction is supplied in cases of common error, and positive and probable doubt of fact or law.

When a false pope who is commonly accepted as pope posits an act which requires jurisdiction, and of which the only defect is his lack of jurisdiction, such as when he appoints a Catholic to a vacant office, then that act would attract the supply of jurisdiction and would therefore be valid.

The man appointed to office in such a case would exercise the ordinary jurisdiction attached to his office. He would not rely upon supplied jurisdiction, precisely because he would possess habitual jurisdiction.

More later, but perhaps you could extract from your correspondent the acknowledgement that he recognises this as accurate law, and that he accepts it. I can multiply proofs if required.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
I've been discovering some of the old secular periodicals (I don't have copies of them myself and really didn't think I would need to keep all the references) that chronicled reactions to the election of Paul 6. Although I've not read anything indicating that there were any people who did not assume Montini was now "pope", he was hardly "universally accepted" as the ruler of the Catholic Church. He was "universally accepted" as a figurehead, to be sure, but definitely not someone who could give an order that would be binding to anyone who did not "work" directly for him.

I almost think that the very nature of the Vatican conference called by Roncolli (or John XXIII) may have rendered it practically impossible for anyone elected after him to be "universally accepted" as the undisputed leader of the Catholic Church unless he had cancelled it outright.

Of course, this is pure speculation but I don't think it can be legitimately claimed that there was "universal acceptance" of Montini, or any of the post-Conciliar popes, by the Catholic faithful or even of the bishops who simply ignore them whenever they choose to do so.


Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:06 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
TKGS, that's exactly right. The concept is of "peaceful acceptance" and whatever relation Catholics had with Paul VI, it wasn't peaceful acceptance of the supreme and infallible ruler and teacher of the Church on earth.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Hello all,

I've been directed via email to a Cathinfo thread in which some discussion occurred regarding sedevacantism and supplied jurisdiction.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=22162

I cannot view Cathinfo except via a proxy server, which is inconvenient, so I won't try and read the entire thread, however these points stick out.

Quote:
The appointment of a Bishop to an office, then, is not something that can be carried out by just about anyone, not even a true Bishop, but only by a true Pope and comes about by the universal jurisdiction effecting the transmission of particular jurisdiction. The Pope's approval is not just a condition, it is a cause.


This is entirely misconceived. Of course the pope's action is a cause, not a condition. That is utterly irrelevant to the question at issue. A false pope appointing a man to an existing episcopal office is not bestowing jurisdiction at all. He is designating a man to an office, an office to which is attached ordinary jurisdiction, and that granting of ordinary jurisdiction was done by a true pope some time in the past. I do not grant that a new diocese cannot be created by a false pope acting by supplied jurisdiction, but I merely abstract from that case to show that the concrete cases we have in view do not even fall afoul of the false principle invented by "Nishant."

We say, Paul VI could have validly appointed Monsignor Lefebvre as ordinary of the Diocese of Tulle in January 1962. The Diocese of Tulle was erected (actually, re-erected) by Pope Gregory XVI in 1822. An office, according to canon law, is a stable position to which is attached some power, of orders or jurisdiction. The position of ordinary of a diocese is a position to which is attached ordinary jurisdiction over the territory of that diocese. There is no power of orders attached to the office - indeed, the relevant degree of orders must be acquired by the appointee within as short a time as is practicable. What he receives is jurisdiction; what he must acquire elsewhere is orders.

In this case, in 1962 the act of designating Lefebvre to the vacant diocesan office would be validated, as Miaskiewicz says (see below), by virtue of supplied jurisdiction. There's nothing difficult to grasp about this, and not even Nishant's false principle, derived by private interpretation of Pius XII, could assail it.

Given Nishant's penchant for asserting that "theologians" say X, Y or Z, without actually quoting them, nothing he asserts can be relied upon, of course. Here is an authority for the correct view: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." (Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.)

That's pretty clear. ALL of his "jurisdictional acts" would be valid. Appointing a bishop to an office is a jurisdictional act, obviously. And in case anybody is inclined to dispute that, let them know that they will need to show how such an act is a magisterial or sacerdotal act, if it isn't a jurisdictional one.

Citing Pius XII on the immediate source of ordinary jurisdiction, and then interpreting that primary source oneself, is essentially no different from quoting Holy Writ and then supplying one's own interpretation. It's exactly the same procedure, carried out upon a different primary source. It is Protestantism. If Nishant can show any theologian who understood Pius XII as he does (i.e. that appointing men to episcopal offices cannot be validly performed by virtue of supplied jurisdiction) then let him cite that theologian. He will find none, because the argument is nonsense. Apart from anything else, it collides head on with many historical cases, especially in the early ages of the Church, when popes only heard about episcopal appointments months, and sometimes years, after the fact. The jurisdiction such bishops exercised came from the Roman Pontiff, not directly from Christ, as Pius XII teaches, but the manner in which the Roman Pontiff bestowed it varied considerably.

On non-bishops exercising jurisdiction, the answer is yes, they can. St Laurence O'Toole exercised the jurisdiction attached the office of ordinary of Dublin prior to his episcopal consecration. This is not a controversial point.

Quote:
Yes, but the situation to the GWS is not comparable, because it is conceded by all that because there was a true Pope, really invested with power and dignity, whoever he was...


This illustrates the poverty of Nishant's knowledge. Actually, many writers have denied that there was any true pope during the GWS, and one powerful reason supporting their argument was that a doubtful pope is no pope.

But all of this is beside the main point, which is that people like Nishant argue that a pope is necessary for the concrete existence of the Church, all the while utterly refusing to share the religion of the concrete "pope" of which they purport to establish the necessity. Hence, they have a purely abstract relation to their concrete pope, whilst getting all hot and bothered by sedevacantists who insist on a perfectly concrete papacy to which all Catholics are bound to have a real and permanent relation - and that relation being perfect subjection.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Very informative and interesting post, John!


Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
John Lane wrote:
TKGS, that's exactly right. The concept is of "peaceful acceptance" and whatever relation Catholics had with Paul VI, it wasn't peaceful acceptance of the supreme and infallible ruler and teacher of the Church on earth.


It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too, John :) "Here is an authority for the correct view: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." (Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.). Is this not contested by you? In fact, you deny this very thing. Fr. Miaskiewicz goes on to say in the same work: "[T]he Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Ibid., p. 28) Further, the first quote doesn't seem quite on point since SV's contend that it is Divine Law that has been transgressed in such a fashion that the papal claimant is no longer a member of the Church and cannot, by that fact, be validly elected. A public, notorious heretic could in no way perform valid jurisdictional acts because he would be cut off at the root. On the other hand, a mere defect in ecclesiastical law rendering the election of an orthodox Pope technically invalid does not render his acts invalid because higher laws come into play, the very reason for the existence of supplied jurisdiction, which is nothing other than ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary, transient way.


Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Caminus wrote:
John Lane wrote:
TKGS, that's exactly right. The concept is of "peaceful acceptance" and whatever relation Catholics had with Paul VI, it wasn't peaceful acceptance of the supreme and infallible ruler and teacher of the Church on earth.


It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too, John :) "Here is an authority for the correct view: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." (Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.). Is this not contested by you? In fact, you deny this very thing.


Not at all. Peaceful acceptance and common error are two entirely different concepts. Peaceful acceptance involves moral unanimity, for a start. Common error does not even require a majority. Peaceful acceptance is rooted in the fact that the pope is the proximate rule of faith for the faithful, and therefore they cannot be mistaken about whom he is when they are (infallibly) taught by him. Common error is a condition laid down by the Church under which she will supply jurisdiction for acts which otherwise would be invalid. She does this in favour of the common good. She is not prepared to do so when only the good of some individuals is in jeopardy.

What we say is that non-Catholics cannot possess habitual jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a relation. It means that a superior has the right to the obedience of an inferior; the inferior has therefore a duty to obey. But as Leo XIII teaches, it is impossible for one who is outside the Church to command in the Church. Not just wrong - impossible. That is, it is impossible for a non-Catholic to have the right to the obedience of Catholics. St. Thomas is perfectly clear and thorough in his article on whether schismatics have any power? (S. Th. II-II Question 39, Article 3.)

Quote:
Whether schismatics have any power?

Objection 1: It would seem that schismatics have some power. For Augustine says (Contra Donat. i, 1): "Just as those who come back to the Church after being baptized, are not baptized again, so those who return after being ordained, are not ordained again." Now Order is a kind of power. Therefore schismatics have some power since they retain their Orders.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Unico Bapt. [*De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 5]): "One who is separated can confer a sacrament even as he can have it." But the power of conferring a sacrament is a very great power. Therefore schismatics who are separated from the Church, have a spiritual power.

Objection 3: Further, Pope Urban II [*Council of Piacenza, cap. x; cf. Can. Ordinationes, ix, qu. 1] says: "We command that persons consecrated by bishops who were themselves consecrated according to the Catholic rite, but have separated themselves by schism from the Roman Church, should be received mercifully and that their Orders should be acknowledged, when they return to the unity of the Church, provided they be of commendable life and knowledge." But this would not be so, unless spiritual power were retained by schismatics. Therefore schismatics have spiritual power.

On the contrary, Cyprian says in a letter (Ep. lii, quoted vii, qu. 1, can. Novatianus): "He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor."

I answer that, Spiritual power is twofold, the one sacramental, the other a power of jurisdiction. The sacramental power is one that is conferred by some kind of consecration. Now all the consecrations of the Church are immovable so long as the consecrated thing remains: as appears even in inanimate things, since an altar, once consecrated, is not consecrated again unless it has been broken up. Consequently such a power as this remains, as to its essence, in the man who has received it by consecration, as long as he lives, even if he fall into schism or heresy: and this is proved from the fact that if he come back to the Church, he is not consecrated anew. Since, however, the lower power ought not to exercise its act, except in so far as it is moved by the higher power, as may be seen also in the physical order, it follows that such persons lose the use of their power, so that it is not lawful for them to use it. Yet if they use it, this power has its effect in sacramental acts, because therein man acts only as God's instrument, so that sacramental effects are not precluded on account of any fault whatever in the person who confers the sacrament.

On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.

Accordingly when it is said that such like persons have no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either to the second power, or if it be referred to the first power, not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its lawful use.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.


Now, despite this doctrine (a matter of divine law), it is possible for a non-Catholic to place a jurisdictional act validly, if and when the Church supplies the requisite jurisdiction for that act. But unless she does this, all such acts are invalid. Nor does she supply in every case when it would be good if she did. No, she supplies in specific circumstances, determined in her wisdom to be appropriate, and carefully defined in canon law. This supply grants no rights to the non-Catholic. Keep this in mind as you read the literature on the subject and it will stand out very clearly. Also, note how badly most traditional Catholics understand the subject. They speak frequently about traditionalist priests "exercising supplied jurisdiction" which is really a nonsense. They don't have any jurisdiction to exercise. What they do is place acts in circumstances in which the Church supplies jurisdiction to validate those acts. It's really very different from exercising jurisdiction. The whole point is that they don't have any jurisdiction. None. It isn't just that they don't have the correct "type" of jurisdiction, which is how many trads appear to think of the matter, but that they don't have jurisdiction, period. Therefore if their acts are to be valid, jurisdiction will have to be supplied.

Caminus wrote:
Fr. Miaskiewicz goes on to say in the same work: "[T]he Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Ibid., p. 28)


Yes, but when a Catholic author writes "the Roman Pontiff" in such a context he means "the office of the papacy" not the person of the pope. At any rate, if Miaskiewicz meant the person of the pope, then his other comment would be senseless. How can an absent person supply anything?

Caminus wrote:
Further, the first quote doesn't seem quite on point since SV's contend that it is Divine Law that has been transgressed in such a fashion that the papal claimant is no longer a member of the Church and cannot, by that fact, be validly elected. A public, notorious heretic could in no way perform valid jurisdictional acts because he would be cut off at the root.


A public heretic could in no way maintain habitual jurisdiction. A public heretic can indeed perform acts validly which require jurisdiction, when for example a member of the faithful approaches a validly-ordained heretic priest for absolution in danger of death. In such a case, the heretic performs an act which absolutely depends upon jurisdiction for validity, and does so validly because the Church supplies the requisite jurisdiction.

Caminus wrote:
On the other hand, a mere defect in ecclesiastical law rendering the election of an orthodox Pope technically invalid does not render his acts invalid because higher laws come into play, .


Well, that doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. Have a read of some of the literature on supplied jurisdiction. A perfectly orthodox priest acting in perfectly good faith may well find that his acts of absolution are invalid because of a purely technical factor (i.e. he does not have faculties), and unless some very specific circumstances are verified (common error, etc.) there will be no supply of jurisdiction.

Caminus wrote:
... supplied jurisdiction, which is nothing other than ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary, transient way.


This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the terminology. Ordinary jurisdiction is jurisdiction which is attached to an office and is habitual. That is, it belongs by right to the office-holder. Supplied jurisdiction is an entirely different creature. It doesn't even exist until and unless certain circumstances occur, when it is created and supplied by the Church. Ordinary jurisdiction implies permanent rights in its holder. Supplied jurisdiction is not "ordinary jurisdiction extraordinarily obtained" but rather an entirely different kind of beast.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Do you not deny that Paul VI was universally accepted? If so, then the condition that would otherwise validate a putative Pope would not exist. In other words, if one denies universal acceptance of the election, then one must also deny the validity his jurisidictional acts, at least according to Fr. Miaskiewicz.



Quote:
Yes, but when a Catholic author writes "the Roman Pontiff" in such a context he means "the office of the papacy" not the person of the pope. At any rate, if Miaskiewicz meant the person of the pope, then his other comment would be senseless. How can an absent person supply anything?


One statement has no bearing on the other. He simply asserted that an invalidly elected Pope would possess valid jurisdictional acts on the condition that the whole world accepted him as the Roman Pontiff. The person of the Pope in virtue of his office is the source of all jurisdiction. What good is the office without an occupant? The office was designed by God to be occupied by a man.


Quote:
Well, that doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. Have a read of some of the literature on supplied jurisdiction. A perfectly orthodox priest acting in perfectly good faith may well find that his acts of absolution are invalid because of a purely technical factor (i.e. he does not have faculties), and unless some very specific circumstances are verified (common error, etc.) there will be no supply of jurisdiction.


It doesn't make any sense if one denies the principle that you just articulated, namely that the purpose of supplied jurisdiction is in reference to the common, not merely individual, good.

Caminus wrote:
... supplied jurisdiction, which is nothing other than ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary, transient way.


Quote:
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the terminology...


"Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner" (Miaskiewicz, pg. 27, citing M. Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici 2. ed., Taurini: Ex Officina Libr. Marietti, 1939, I, n. 291.)


Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: New Argument against Sedevacantism - universal acceptanc
Caminus wrote:
Do you not deny that Paul VI was universally accepted? If so, then the condition that would otherwise validate a putative Pope would not exist. In other words, if one denies universal acceptance of the election, then one must also deny the validity his jurisidictional acts, at least according to Fr. Miaskiewicz.


No, that's a misunderstanding of Miaskiewicz. He means one of two possible things: Either, that once there is common error, jurisdiction would be supplied to validate the putative pope's acts, or, that once there is common error, jurisdiction would be supplied to validate the putative pope's election, making him truly the pope. In either case, the statement Miaskiewicz makes is the statement of a concrete case, rather than an abstract principle, and in any such statement we must take care not to mistake the principle it is actually meant to express. He says, "once he were regarded by the world as Pope," and you appear to take that as indicating that if and only if the entire world regards him as pope would his acts be validated. But this is not what Miaskiewicz says, and it cannot be what he means, for he is talking about the supply of jurisdiction in common error. There is no separate supply of jurisdiction in universal error. It is perfectly possible for jurisdiction to be supplied in circumstances in which there is both common error and complete clarity on the part of many others who are better informed; in such a case, a priest's confessions would be valid even though many of the penitents are aware that he has no faculties and therefore his confessions ought in fact to be invalid (and would only be valid by supplied jurisdiction).

But at any rate, Miaskiewicz doesn't say "the whole world" - he says, "the world".

The book is here, if anybody wishes to consult the text: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books ... %20209.pdf


Caminus wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but when a Catholic author writes "the Roman Pontiff" in such a context he means "the office of the papacy" not the person of the pope. At any rate, if Miaskiewicz meant the person of the pope, then his other comment would be senseless. How can an absent person supply anything?


One statement has no bearing on the other. He simply asserted that an invalidly elected Pope would possess valid jurisdictional acts on the condition that the whole world accepted him as the Roman Pontiff. The person of the Pope in virtue of his office is the source of all jurisdiction. What good is the office without an occupant?


Well, you might ponder what it is that gives the force of law to the Church's laws during a vacancy of the Holy See, when there is no "person" whose will is being imposed.

But leaving aside that question, which I think is probably outside of our real disagreement, the reason I made the point I made, was that you appeared to be making something of the wording of Miaskiewicz's comment, "[T]he Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." You bolded, "or more properly the Supreme Pontiff" when you quoted it. Perhaps you could make it clearer what your point was?


Caminus wrote:
Quote:
Well, that doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. Have a read of some of the literature on supplied jurisdiction. A perfectly orthodox priest acting in perfectly good faith may well find that his acts of absolution are invalid because of a purely technical factor (i.e. he does not have faculties), and unless some very specific circumstances are verified (common error, etc.) there will be no supply of jurisdiction.


It doesn't make any sense if one denies the principle that you just articulated, namely that the purpose of supplied jurisdiction is in reference to the common, not merely individual, good.


In common error, it absolutely has to do with the common good, not the individual good. The Church will supply jurisdiction for the good of an individual, but only under much more restricted circumstances - e.g. in danger of death. Read Miaskiewicz right through, this is not something that is disputable.

Again, perhaps you could make your point more clearly? You wrote, "On the other hand, a mere defect in ecclesiastical law rendering the election of an orthodox Pope technically invalid does not render his acts invalid because higher laws come into play..." What does that mean?

Caminus wrote:
Caminus wrote:
... supplied jurisdiction, which is nothing other than ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary, transient way.


Quote:
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the terminology...


"Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner" (Miaskiewicz, pg. 27, citing M. Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici 2. ed., Taurini: Ex Officina Libr. Marietti, 1939, I, n. 291.)


Touche!

Now, what did you mean?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:44 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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.