It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:42 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 Bishop Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P? 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post Bishop Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P?
Anyone know where I can read more about him and could someone please explain why his thesis is or is not the best description of the current situation in the Church?


Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Hello Clark.

Do you by any chance read French?

Do you by any chance subscribe to The Four Marks?

An affirmative answer to one or both of these questions would be helpful!

In Our Lord and Our Lady

John


Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
I can not read french and no I don't subscribe to that.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
I know you asked about a critique of the thesis, Clark, and not the thesis itself. However, I am going to start putting up Bp. Sanborn's explanation thereof, piece by piece, on the site in my signature.

My hope is to facilitate discussion about this issue.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
I know you asked about a critique of the thesis, Clark, and not the thesis itself. However, I am going to start putting up Bp. Sanborn's explanation thereof, piece by piece, on the site in my signature.

My hope is to facilitate discussion about this issue.


Dear Eamon,

There is no need to re-publish Bishop Sanborn's article. Just provide a link.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:10 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
I would if I could, John. I am not a fast typist, nor very computer savvy. I actually was given a link by Clark to what appears to be an explanation of the thesis by Fr. Lucien, but I have not read it yet.

Bp. Sanborn published his own explanation of the thesis about two and a half years ago, but it is not on-line anywhere, as far as I know (like the article by Mr. Omlor on the "una cum" issue).

My hope is to get my printer/scanner working very soon, and just make it a word document - then ask some wiser friend how to make that into an accessible document.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 35
New post 
That crazy John Daly...I subscribed to The Four Marks last night and it better be worth it :) .


Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:30 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
This is a link to a newsletter Bishop Sanborn wrote before his consecration regarding Bishop Guérard's Thesis. http://www.catholicrestoration.org/newsletter/02_may.htm


Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:07 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Question
Pax Christi !

What is the position of the C-Thesis regarding non-bishops " elected" to the See of Rome? For example, Ratzinger, since he is not a valid bishop, is he still a " material pope" in their eyes? And what of the next claimants? They will all have been consecrated by the new rite.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:03 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
The general impression here in France, where Fr Guérard's thesis is quite strong, is that with the passage oft time the materiality is diminishing... JP2 was at least elected by some validly nominated cardinals. BXVI wasn't and can only get his "material" element by "supply". The "surviving" disciples of Fr Guerard are tending to say that Benedict XVI is at best only materially pope.

My article on this thesis appeared in the March 2006 issue of The Four Marks. I would post it here but I feel it would be unfair on the gallant Kathleen Plumb who has put her all into creating this attractive and interesting non-sectarian sedevacantist monthly at the very cheap price of 29$ for a year's subscription within the US. You can subscribe here http://www.thefourmarks.com.

For the present I think it should be emphasised that the more one grasps the relevant philosophy matter/form and potentiality/actuality the less wide the gulf appears between the Guérardian ("Cassiciacum") thesis and classic Bellarmine sedevacantism. Just as a "material sin" isn't really a sin, so a "material pope" isn't really a pope. Asked to reply by "Yes" or "No" to the question whether BXVI is pope, the Cassiciacum disciple says "No". And on that much at least...he is right.

JD


Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:49 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
The general impression here in France, where Fr Guérard's thesis is quite strong, is that with the passage oft time the materiality is diminishing... JP2 was at least elected by some validly nominated cardinals. BXVI wasn't and can only get his "material" element by "supply". The "surviving" disciples of Fr Guerard are tending to say that Benedict XVI is at best only materially pope.

My article on this thesis appeared in the March 2006 issue of The Four Marks. I would post it here but I feel it would be unfair on the gallant Kathleen Plumb who has put her all into creating this attractive and interesting non-sectarian sedevacantist monthly at the very cheap price of 29$ for a year's subscription within the US. You can subscribe here http://www.thefourmarks.com.

For the present I think it should be emphasised that the more one grasps the relevant philosophy matter/form and potentiality/actuality the less wide the gulf appears between the Guérardian ("Cassiciacum") thesis and classic Bellarmine sedevacantism. Just as a "material sin" isn't really a sin, so a "material pope" isn't really a pope. Asked to reply by "Yes" or "No" to the question whether BXVI is pope, the Cassiciacum disciple says "No". And on that much at least...he is right.

JD


Fr.Guerard? I assume you don't think the Thuc consecretions are valid,even though he was one of the first people +Thuc raised to the Episcopate?


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
The "surviving" disciples of Fr Guerard are tending to say that Benedict XVI is at best only materially pope.


I am not an adherent of the thesis, but I have to ask what this is supposed to indicate? Even if the Cardinals' situation were as good as possible, the thesis would still indicate that Benedict is only ("at best") material pope, yes?

Quote:
For the present I think it should be emphasised that the more one grasps the relevant philosophy matter/form and potentiality/actuality the less wide the gulf appears between the Guérardian ("Cassiciacum") thesis and classic Bellarmine sedevacantism. Just as a "material sin" isn't really a sin, so a "material pope" isn't really a pope.


This will likely sound rude, John, but whose grasp is increasing: your own, or the guerardians? I mean, I read some of your thoughts on this matter from a while ago, and such a statement would have been impossible from you then, no?

To Mr. Lane: The reason I said "sound rude" was because it is not meant to offend in any way, but is a hard question to frame properly. We know Mr. Daly bashed the guerardian thesis, and now he is talking about how this position is not so far from that of sedevacantists. He also talks about a greater grasp of certain things bringing this about. Now, to my knowledge, the thesis has not undergone any change. Someone's grasp has incrased, and I am asking: "whose grasp?" If you have any "nice and tidy" phraseology that can be used to ask this question, I will happily employ it.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
This will likely sound rude, John, but whose grasp is increasing: your own, or the guerardians?


Yes, it does sound rude. Since you can see it yourself, why not modify your words until they don't sound rude?

Eamon, if you can't meet the standards of this board, which so far you are not, then you are not welcome. So perhaps a day's break and a bit of meditation might assist?

Sincerely. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:56 pm
Profile E-mail

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

Dear John Daly,

Many thanks for the reply. And I have been shamefully delinquent in submitting my subscription to the Four Marks. I will indeed rectify this !

Regarding the question, I asked this because it appears ( by my blind reckoning anyway) that the C-Thesis rests on there being a legitimate " Cardinal bishop" elect for there to be a " material pope". I gleaned this understanding not from reading the whole thesis, but rather, from Bishop Sanborns " announcement "that outlined his conversion to said thesis.

Of course, my understanding could be completely false, but if the thesis is based on a " cardinal-bishop" claimant, me thinks then that time has passed, and thus the C-Thesis itself can not be sustained.


Your thoughts? I am most likely missing something here. Please advise good friend,

In Christ our King, .

Vincent


Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:36 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
To Mr. Lane: The reason I said "sound rude" was because it is not meant to offend in any way, but is a hard question to frame properly. We know Mr. Daly bashed the guerardian thesis, and now he is talking about how this position is not so far from that of sedevacantists. He also talks about a greater grasp of certain things bringing this about. Now, to my knowledge, the thesis has not undergone any change. Someone's grasp has incrased, and I am asking: "whose grasp?" If you have any "nice and tidy" phraseology that can be used to ask this question, I will happily employ it.


Dear Eamon,

This is as good a piece of scrap wood to make some practice cuts in as any.

The problem seems to me to be in your general approach. Mr. Daly is a long-standing traditional Catholic (circa 1983), very famous for his erudition and his virtue, who has dedicated more than a decade of his life to public work for Holy Mother Church and the good of souls, and the father of six children. Your approach to him ought to be respectful and diffident. The same is true of the "SSPX priests" that you speak about as though they were in any sense your equals. They are not. If I could introduce you to Fr. Peter Scott or Fr. Ortiz, from the seminary at Goulburn, you would not dare to speak in their presence as you do in their absence. Both are theologically learned to a degree that very few sedevacantist priests could aspire to (just to provide a comparison that might bring home the point). Fr. Edward MacDonald here in Perth has forgotten more doctrine than you will likely ever learn. He doesn't know everything, I'm sure, but the sheer quantity of his knowledge is amazing. And what do these men do? They serve souls. In the case of Fr. MacDonald, he is a native of Detroit stuck here in little Perth, Western Australia, as a pastor of a tiny parish. And he is cheerful about it, please understand. I've never heard him utter a word of complaint. My point is that he is diligent, dedicated, dutiful. And hidden.

There should be no room whatsoever in our language or general demeanour for the kind of superior attitude displayed by many traditional Catholics towards their clergy, or even their fellow members of the Mystical Body. This crisis is a fearful mystery, and the last thing we should be thinking is that we have worked it all out. What we see clearly, that others may not see, should be cause for us to be grateful and fearful. Fearful lest in our confidence we offend God and He withdraws the light we are crediting ourselves with possessing.

So, how ought you to frame your question? How about something like this?

"Mr. Daly, I recall reading a previous document of yours on the Cassiciacum Thesis and you appear to have softened your attitude to it considerably. Is that right, and if so, what is the reason?"

There isn't any need to toady, but there are many, many, grounds for diffidence and respectfulness.

Please don't be offended that I have "picked on" you. There are plenty of people out there who are infinitely more deserving of similar correction, and I have been the greatest offender on numerous occasions in the past, so please, as I suggested elsewhere, be wise and learn from the mistakes of others.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Eamon Shea wrote:
To Mr. Lane: The reason I said "sound rude" was because it is not meant to offend in any way, but is a hard question to frame properly. We know Mr. Daly bashed the guerardian thesis, and now he is talking about how this position is not so far from that of sedevacantists. He also talks about a greater grasp of certain things bringing this about. Now, to my knowledge, the thesis has not undergone any change. Someone's grasp has incrased, and I am asking: "whose grasp?" If you have any "nice and tidy" phraseology that can be used to ask this question, I will happily employ it.


There should be no room whatsoever in our language or general demeanour for the kind of superior attitude displayed by many traditional Catholics towards their clergy, or even their fellow members of the Mystical Body.


Hi John,

Wonderful reply for all of us. I've often thought about our modern errors of disrespect for our elders, for true competence, and our incredible hubris and ignorance on almost everything. However, I'm going to defend Eamon a little here, because really most of these 'defects' are rampant in sede circles, and, I hate to say it, by some clergy, as well as you've indicated by some of us (myself included) in this forum. The laity 'pick up' this attitude from those they've invested with the authority of 'pope' in absence of a true one.

I'm going to take a little diversion and build on what you said about Fr. Scott (whom we love, what a priest) and the SSPX:
Actually, truth to tell, I've found the most charity and humility in the SSPX priests, CMRI priests (Fr. Radecki for one), and some NO indults, than I've ever found in many sede circles (excepting CMRI). I've been a sede for some years, and have had my anti-SSPX days, but as I grow older I'm amazed, gratified, awed, and humbled by this little band of priests that has stayed together through the most incredible time in the Church. They're bashed by the Vatican, castigated by sedes, dumped on by NO's, beat up by the press; and, despite it all, they're there hanging on. Their apostolate is world-wide. Their influence is out of all proportion to their size. If it weren't for the SSPX, there would be no traditional movement, no old mass, nothing. Everything we have is because of them, and their saintly founder. Oh, Archbishop Lefebrve, what a giant. Wonderful family, so well educated (when education meant something), so priestly, missionary in Africa under incredible circumstances, apostolic delegate, Archbishop during V2, lived when the Church was splendid in her hierarchy, lived under obedience, head of the largest missionary order in the world. The SSPX and the wonderful Archbishop, standing miracles in a world bereft of miracles.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and think we see.

John, thank you again so much for your kind words about the SSPX. What a breath of fresh air for us sedes. However, you do see how listening to the wrong people ( e.g., 'una cum' proponents) can injure the Mystical Body?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:32 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
So is discussion of the C-thesis inappropriate for this forum ? I am trying to get a good picture of all sides of the story . Do priests whom adhere to the C-thesis mention Benedict XVI in the canon of the Mass? Or is another phrase used instead?


Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Clark wrote:
So is discussion of the C-thesis inappropriate for this forum ? I am trying to get a good picture of all sides of the story . Do priests whom adhere to the C-thesis mention Benedict XVI in the canon of the Mass? Or is another phrase used instead?


The Guerardian position, also known as the Cassiciacum Thesis could be discussed here, but unless say an intelligent priest, or Mr. Larrabee or Mr. Daly have the time to devote to it (and Mr. Larrabee is not a member of the board), it would be beyond the competence of most people. It involves the handling of technical terms in philosophy which Bishop Sanborn himself states are beyond most people. (Which actually produces a situation in which he imagines the theory is therefore impregnable.) :) But whether or not we non-philosophers understand it, we would struggle to explain it and refute it properly.

To answer your other question, no, the C-Thesis originator, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers (later Bishop), also began the campaign to convince priests from mentioning Paul VI (I think) in the Canon, and eventually, to convince the laity not to assist at Masses in which the heretic was named. As far as I can determine, until after the year 2000 that attitude and position was exclusively a Guerardian thing, unshared by sedevacantists.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
What do you mean by an intelligent priest? What sort of priest would not be capable of being able to under stand the philosophy behind the thesis(aside from maybe an NO priest, if they are even valid priests). Wouldn't any Trad priest's formation in theology and philosophy make him fully capable of understanding the thesis? Are the two laymen you mentioned equal in capablity of explaining the thesis as an intelligent priest?


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:58 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Clark wrote:
What do you mean by an intelligent priest? What sort of priest would not be capable of being able to under stand the philosophy behind the thesis


Any man who was not really competent in philosophy.

Clark wrote:
Wouldn't any Trad priest's formation in theology and philosophy make him fully capable of understanding the thesis?


No, not necessarily. It is a question both of intelligence and formation.

Clark wrote:
Are the two laymen you mentioned equal in capablity of explaining the thesis as an intelligent priest?


Well, perhaps. Mr. Larrabee, one of our layman, was nine years a cleric. Do you think he stopped knowing what he knew, or lost his reason, when he left the clerical state? Mr. Daly is the only other layman I know who is to any real extent competent in philosophy.

Not every priest is a theologian. Not every priest is a philosopher. Not every priest is a medical doctor (Fr. Scott, for example is).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
Ok.

So you explained that you think the Thesis is incorrect? Are reg. Sedevacantism and the Thesis mutually exclusive ? I know +Dolan and +Sanborn seem to work together, yet one of them is a sedevacantist and the other is a supporter of the C-thesis.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Replies to Eamon, Clark and Vince Sheridan
My apologies for having been away from this forum for a few days and not having kept up with those who are asking me questions or attempting to refute the small number of relatively mild and unexciting remarks I have made on this thread. Now for one or two very brief answers.

Yes, Eamon, my views have changed on this and other issues. That would be good evidence that I am a wretchedly incompetent, frivolous, capricious ignoramus…except that it is also true of many great saints and scholars. Boringly, I am not a great saint and scholar, but I am not am a wretchedly incompetent, frivolous, capricious ignoramus either.

The truth is that a single error or erroneous tendency can do a lot of mischief and I was in one from 1983-1998. That was the tendency to see implicit heresy in every religious error and implicit pertinacity in every failure to see truth that was clear to me. An utterly poisonous attitude which I now regret and detest with every fibre of my being. I have set out in several articles and studies the reasons and texts that led me to hold the harsh, erroneous view on heresy and pertinacity, and the reasons and authorities that led me to abandon it. Those articles are to be found on the web and elsewhere, in English and French, and no serious attempt has been made to answer them.

Emerging from that trap in 1998 was like taking off a pair of borrowed spectacles that had lent a distorted view to everything else. Once cast aside, things returned to their true perspective. It is not a secret that I have changed my views and I am glad you have drawn public attention to it. I may still be wrong about many things, just as you may. My views are as good as the reasons I advance for them, no better.

With regard to the Cassiciacum thesis, I had in fact acquired my chief knowledge of it from its most vehement enemies – not always well-informed – and from certain proponents whom I now know to be among the weakest defenders of their own position. Since that time I have heard the thesis expounded by solid philosophers – a great rarity even among priests – and I have discussed it with them. And I have observed that my former “proof” that the thesis is heretical is simply false. I used to think that they held a man to be pope but not to possess immediate and absolute jurisdiction over all the faithful. As soon as I understood that they do not believe him to be pope…this objection fell away.

I still have plenty of other objections and I suspect that the arguments for and against the thesis are more interesting than the history of my theological vagaries. But I now know that this is an in-house disagreement among Catholics, which makes a huge difference. Having said that, let’s face the fact that there are difference among the “Guerardians” too. The less philosophical ones seem to see their position as a half-way house between the SSPX position and sedevacantism. The more philosophical ones see it as a variant of sedevacantism and that is correct.

Unfortunately, the variant is a total novelty. It entails rejecting an explanation of the crisis based on classic theology in favour of one based on a highly innovative theory – the discovery of a new factor that can prevent an elected candidate from receiving the papacy “in act”. And their rejection of the classic explanation is due to objections that can be adequately answered.

BTW, I wrote “The "surviving" disciples of Fr Guérard are tending to say that Benedict XVI is at best only materially pope”. To this you replied, “I am not an adherent of the thesis, but I have to ask what this is supposed to indicate? Even if the Cardinals' situation were as good as possible, the thesis would still indicate that Benedict is only ("at best") material pope, yes?”

I fail to follow you. “At best” and “only” are not equivalent terms. Those who say that Benedict XVI is “at best” only materially pope are admitting that he may not be pope even in their sense of the word “materially”: the see may be fully vacant. That is a change.

To Clark: no, I do not deny the validity of the Thuc consecrations: I strongly incline to think them valid – at least the best known ones. But, perhaps perversely, I think that ecclesiastical titles ought strictly speaking to go with legitimate possession of the corresponding office, not the valid possession of the order. Having said which I have no conscientious objection to giving people whatever title they want in most cases. I used “Father” out of habit.

To Vince Sheridan: the thesis in its original form assumes that at least some of the electors in the conclave are validly named cardinals. It is not clear to me that it has ever required the person elected to be one. A layman can be validly elected pope. But of course the election of Benedict XVI was the first in which no cardinal took part who had been named before the crisis. On that topic there is a divide in Guerardian ranks. Some of them hold that the “material pope”, though normally without any papal jurisdiction, can nonetheless validly name cardinals, as they (wrongly) think this to be necessary for a future valid papal election. But this was not part of the original thesis. Indeed it was added by Fr de Blignières who no longer holds the thesis at all. Others hold, correctly, that one who has not yet validly accepted papal election certainly cannot name cardinals. That reduces them to a hesitant plea of supplied jurisdiction or rectification by consent of the faithful to give material validity to an election in itself worthless. Bishop/Fr Guerard himself admitted that the longer the crisis lasted the slenderer the claim of material legitimacy would become.

Again to Clark: the Cassiciacum thesis and classic Bellarmine sedevacantism are not mutually exclusive with regard to collaboration but they are mutually exclusive in the obvious sense that they cannot both be true at the same time. Classic sedevacantism holds that a given V2 “pope” was invalidly elected owing to ineligibility through public heresy. Cassiciacum holds that he was validly elected but has not yet given valid consent to that election owing to want of the intention to realise the Church’s true good. That such an intention is a necessary condition of valid consent to a papal election is a claim they should be showing some authority for. I believe they have none.

Finally, a general observation: the original Guerardian objection to classic sedevacantism was the impossibility of diagnosing with certainty that the V2 “popes” were heretics. It is interesting to note that Bishop/Fr Sanborn has no hesitation in making the diagnosis of heresy.

Ave Maria Sanctissima!

John Daly


Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Replies to Eamon, Clark and Vince Sheridan
John Daly wrote:
I think that ecclesiastical titles ought strictly speaking to go with legitimate possession of the corresponding office, not the valid possession of the order. Having said which I have no conscientious objection to giving people whatever title they want in most cases.


John, could you expand on this comment a little. Especially with regards to traditionalist bishops.

Do we need a pope to have "legitimate possession of the corresponding office"?


Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Along the same lines as the previous post (or maybe not)...

In the "good old days" when a Bishop retired, I assume he no longer had any jurisdiction (as a Bishop). Was he still addressed as Bishop X or retired Bishop X? Or something else?


Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:11 am
Profile

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
In the "good old days" when a Bishop retired, I assume he no longer had any jurisdiction (as a Bishop). Was he still addressed as Bishop X or retired Bishop X? Or something else?


I thought that they were "given" an ancient see (but I could be wrong).


Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:50 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
I hope I haven't inadvertently opened a can of worms here - I had no intention of doing so. Not all traditional bishops even want the faithful to call them bishop. And "bishop" followed by the surname is not even a recognised ecclesiastical title anyway.

In normal times the Holy See usually gave retiring bishops a titular see.

The status of traditional bishops in our days, validly consecrated without any mandate direct or indirect from the Holy See is necessarily a controversial subject and one that would merit a very long and detailed debate...for which I certainly cannot spare the time at present.

I have not the slightest objection to giving them informal title "bishop" in reference to their valid episcopal orders, but I seriously doubt whether it is strictly correct or obligatory. Here in France numerous adherents of the Cassiciacum thesis continue to refer to its originator as "le Père Guérard".

JD


Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:25 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Dear John,

Don't you also think that these valid traditional bishops should NOT be addressed as "your excellency" or "your eminence?" It seems to me that titles like those in someway covey that the bishop in question has jurisdiction or possession of a see.

Lance


Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:35 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
I do agree, Lance, and I think most of the bishops do also. At least, a Verrua seminarian from Italy told me that their seminarians had been told when speaking to English-language traditional bishops-of-nowhere to call them "Bishop", not "Your excellency" (or my Lord" which is the UK English form).

Obviously epîscopal orders are distinct from episcopal authority, but the faithful will understandably tend to confound the two. Hence we see some Catholics giving greater weight to the theological views of, say, Bishop Pivarunas, than, say, Father Cekada, merely because the one has been consecrated and the other hasn't. This is wrong and dangerous. Orders do not supply theological knowledge or good judgment and moreover in terms of ecclesiastically reocognised status, Fr Cekada received his priesthood from a duly appointed successor of the apostles and Bishop Pivarunas didn't, which means that in a certain respect he is the senior. I don't mean by this to suggest that there is any significant conflict between the two - it is just an illustration.

John


Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post How to Address and How to Treat Sacred Persons
Dear John D. and Lance, Pax et Bonum.

"St. Bonaventure argued that the interior life is acquired and preserved through the exterior. Just as in nature, he said, there is never a tree without its leaves and bark, nor a fruit without its rind or husk to serve as protection, so also interior recollection is preserved by the exterior demeanor and ways of being and treatment. When the exterior fails, the other fails also." Alphonsus Rodrigues, S.J., Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtue (Chicago: Loyola Un. Press, 1929) Vol. 2, p. 112-3.

Respectfully, this is an opinion only, certainly not an instruction. My husband and I were instructed by a very good (and we think holy) sede. Bishop in the U.S. (formerly in the SSPX - and now Bishop through Thuc line), that we were "not to genuflect when kissing his ring--that was reserved for the Bishop of jurisdiction." And, I must assume that there is NO Bishop with jurisdiction at present. This subject is too confusing for me, even though I have tried to wade through the long thread on this issue in the forum discussions.

That admitted, however, I still could not agree with your opinion that we do not refer to Bishops w/o "official" jurisdiction as Your Excellency . The reason, IMHO, is that the title is not about jurisdiction, but about the Ordination. The Ordinations, if the Traditional Rite, are valid and therefore the respect of the address of these sacred persons is proper. Because -- if we follow your thoughts to a logical conclusion, one must then not refer to a priest "without jurisdiction" as "Reverend," but only as "Father," oui?

Perhaps this is a personal choice, because in the final analysis, I cannot simply say "Bishop" -- and I would continue to introduce a Traditional priest as "This is the Reverend John Smith" --and a Traditional bishop as "This is His Excellency Robert Jones." Perhaps it is from my early years as a devout Catholic (born in 1944), before the V-2 sect destroyed the integrity of true Catholic teachings by seeding them with error and with their irreverence to sacred persons.

I understand your desire for "correctness" (polemically) -- but I must continue to address sacred persons by their proper titles, even if these seemingly have no "jurisdiction." And perhaps "The Church Supplies" could be applied/considered since the true priests and bishops continue - that's CONTINUE :) . The Traditional Roman Catholic Church did not break away from Truth; the V-2 sect broke away from Truth.

QUESTION :?: Could we not say the V-2 sect has NO JURISDICTION?
:?:

I don't comprehend deep discussion very well, even tho' I try. It gives me a headache :!: Yet, I do respect that most of you on this forum and in these discussions DO comprehend deep discussion, and I praise God for that, while remaining in peace that I simply have not been given that particular Light. However, the Light I have been given and for which I thank God is a deep reverence for sacred persons (valid religious and the validly ordained), so I believe that some of us on this forum would have difficulty just saying "Bishop."

Those are my two cents, offered with respect. I am always open to correction, however.


I have appended excerpts from an interesting article from the Tradition in Action website (Traditional but not sede) on this very subject. It seems very helpful. . . .

FROM: http://traditioninaction.org/religious/ ... lergy.html

How to Address Priests and Religious: Titles and Signs of Respect
By Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.

. . . In times past every Catholic used to know some of the simple rules that have been set aside from disuse. The general protocol was taught by sisters in grade school, but more often was learned as in osmosis from everyday practice. No one dreamed of calling Father O’Reilly by the nickname “Bill,” or, addressing Sister Margaret Mary as “Maggie.” Everyone knew you rose as a sign of respect when a priest or religious entered the room. Speaking before a gathering that included clergy or religious, a Catholic speaker as habit addressed them solemnly first.

But then came the tumultuous and leveling aftermath of Vatican II that spelled a death to formalities in the religious sphere. Priests, monks and sisters began to adopt the ways of a world that were becoming increasingly vulgar and egalitarian. Distinguishing titles and marks of respect were considered alienating and only for old-fashioned “establishment” people who were afraid to embrace the “signs of the times.”

In the spirit of adaptation to the world, the cassock and habit were abandoned, along with the formal signs of respect paid to the persons who wore them. Confusion set in: what do you call a nun in a pants suit who says, “Just call me Ann,” or a priest in a western shirt and cowboy boots, who says, “You can call me Cowboy Bob”? No, I’m not making that last one up.

This leveling egalitarian spirit violates not only tradition and the laws of civility, but also the practice of justice. We need only look to a basic principle of Roman Law, so coherent in its logic, which states that that each one should be given what he has a right to receive. Because people are unequal in status, situation, and talent, the necessity of justice demands unequal treatment. Catholic doctrine used to be applied concretely in Christian Civilization. Thus one could judge a person according to a code of rights, merits and honors, and according to this code, use a formula of respect suitable for each one and each occasion.

It is a great good to know how to give respectful treatment to a superior. Reciprocally, those in higher positions have a duty of justice to treat those below them with dignity and consideration. Let me give a charming example from our Catholic past: King Louis XIV took off his hat for every woman, even if she were a simple housemaid. But he did not remove it for a man unless he were a member of the clergy or a royal family. For a man with a Catholic spirit, this hierarchical order of dignities provides a kind of oxygen that makes it easier to breathe.

Addressing priests and religious

Today, some serious Catholics are doing more than reminiscing about those “good old days.” Aware of the importance of not only exterior demeanor and symbols, but also the ways of treatment and address that were accorded to religious as their just due, they would like to return to the basic courtesies. It is a very positive step.

Let me turn, then, to the first question:
1. Should we call a priest by his first name or last name? I can remember in elementary school all the priests went by their last names, but now they seem to want to be called by their first.
The answer is simple. Father William Walters should be addressed as Father Walters or as Father, not as Father Bill, and certainly not as Bill. In the really old times, to which I would like to return, you would address him as Your Reverence.

In addressing an envelope to a priest you would write The Reverend Father William Walters, or The Reverend William Walters. Don’t forget the The. If you want to be more polite you could use His Reverence.

If the letter is formal, the salutation would be The Reverend Father Walter; for a personal letter, the salutation would be Father Walters, or if you know him better, Dear Father Walters.

If you are writing to a priest who is a member of a religious order, you would add the initials of his community after his name, e.g. The Reverend Philip Amato, O.F.M. , or The Reverend Father Philip Amato, O.F.M. (1) A brother, one who has taken the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in an order but has not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, should always be called Brother, not Father. In written address, his initials would also follow his name, e.g., Brother Francis Marie, O.F.M. (the complete article at http://traditioninaction.org/religious/ ... lergy.html has a good list of abbreviations at the end of the article - Ardith)

It is my first choice to maintain the address Father William Walters or The Reverend Father William Walters in preference to simply The Reverend in the formal or written address. Since most Protestant ministers are addressed as “the reverend,” this puts a healthy distinction between the Catholic priest and the Protestant preacher, and does not place the priest on the same level as men who are not Catholic.

For the same reason, it is inconvenient for a Catholic to call a Protestant preacher “reverend,” because this is to indirectly confer legitimacy to his heretical confession. It is much better to call a Lutheran Mr. Jones instead of reverend Jones, or use the title Doctor or Professor, if it is applicable. In writing, it is sometimes necessary to refer to a Protestant as bishop, but the title should be lower case, e.g. bishop Philip Robinson, or Protestant bishop Robinson, as a sign of differentiation from the Catholic Bishop. (Don't know about this last one. . . .hmmmm. Ardith)

We Americans have the duty to be especially vigilant regarding tolerance toward Protestantism. It was such tolerance that produced the heresy of Americanism, which in final analysis, is to adapt Catholic doctrine and practices to Protestantism. Unfortunately that same penchant (for tolerance) that induced Leo XIII to write against Americanism is still alive today not only among progressivist Catholics, but even among conservative or traditionalist American Catholics.

The same general rule regarding Protestants – that is, to avoid the religious title in direct address – would apply to the hierarchy in other heretical or schismatic confessions. If a title is used in writing, it should be lower case, e.g. rabbi Jacob Levinsky, or for an “orthodox” bishop, bishop Michael Baldwin, etc. (I realize that sedevacantist Catholics have much to argue on this point. Ardith)

The Rules Simply Stated

Going up the Catholic hierarchical ladder, these are the basic rules to serve you in day-to-day circumstances:
Deacons

Direct address: Deacon Morris
Written address: Reverend Deacon Michael Morris
Formal introduction: The Reverend Deacon Michael Morris

[Note: Deacons, from the Greek diakonos meaning servant, are those who received the lowest of the major orders of priesthood: deacon, priest and Bishop. The minor orders are: porter, lector, exorcist and acolyte.

The role of deacons has varied through the History of Church. In the early period, they were numerous and exercised many different functions, either as assistants in the celebration of the Mass or for various practical services of the Church. Later, in the Latin Rite, their role diminished and almost disappeared, and the deacon became just an intermediary step for the priesthood.

The Council of Trent considered restoring permanent deacons, but did not do so. After the Second Vatican Council, given the shortage of priests, permanent deacons were restored to help maintain the flock.]

Brother

Direct address: Brother Elias.
Written address: Brother Elias, O.F.M.
Formal introduction: Brother Elias of the Order of Friars Minor.

Religious Priest

Direct address: Father McKenzie, or Father.
Written address: The Reverend Father Leo F. McKenzie, S.J.
Formal introduction: The Reverend Father Leo McKenzie of The Society of Jesus.

Diocesan Priest

Direct address: Father Butler, or Father.
Written address: The Reverend Father John W. Butler.
Formal introduction: The Reverend Father John Butler.
Protocol: Stand when a Priest enters the room, and remain standing until he invites you to sit. Men should remove their hats in his presence. A good custom at greeting the Priest is to kiss his hand, to honor the fact that they conescrate the Holy Eucharist. The same signs of respect should be given shen leaving his presence.

Monsignor

Direct address: Monsignor Smith, or Monsignor.
Written address: The Right Reverend Monsignor Thomas R. Smith, or The Very Reverend Monsignor Thomas R. Smith.
Formal introduction: The Very Reverend Monsignor Thomas Smith. Protocol: the same as for Priests.

Bishop (2)

Direct address: Your Excellency, or Bishop McNeil.
Written address: His Excellency, The Right Reverend William A. Scully, D.D. Bishop of Baltimore. or His Excellency, The Right Reverend Bishop William Scully of Baltimore.
Formal closing: Kissing the Sacred Ring,
Formal introduction: His Excellency, the Bishop of Baltimore.
Protocol: Stand when a Bishop enters the room, and remain standing until he invites you to sit. Men should remove their hats in his presence. For your own Bishop, you may kneel on your left knee and kiss his ring as a sign of respect for his office. If kneeling would be ackward, or if it is not your own Bishop, you may bow at the waist and kiss his ring. Do not do either if the Pope is present. The same signs of respect should be given when leaving his presence.
(2) It is common usage in Europe to address a Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal as Monsignor (Msgr. or Msg.). This can be confusing to Americans, who commonly reserve the title strictly for the Monsignor, who is ranked below the Bishop.
Archbishop

Direct address: Your Grace, or Archbishop Kovak.
Written address: His Grace, The Most Reverend Michael T. Kovak, S.T.D. Archbishop of New York, or His Grace, The Most Reverend Archbishop Michael T. Kovak, of New York.
Formal closing: Kissing the Sacred Ring,
Formal introduction: His Grace, the Archbishop of Baltimore.
Protocol: The same as for a Bishop.

Patriarch

Direct address: Your Beatitude.
Written address: His Beatitude, the Most Reverend Michael Cardinal Sabbah, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Formal introduction: His Beatitude, The Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Protocol: The same as for a Bishop.

Cardinal

Direct address: Your Eminence, or Cardinal Hand.
Written address: His Eminence, Thomas Cardinal Hand, Archbishop of Los Angeles, or, His Eminence, The Most Reverend Cardinal Thomas J. Hand, of Los Angeles.
Formal closing: Kissing the Sacred Purple,
Formal introduction: His Eminence, Cardinal of Los Angeles.
Protocol: The same as for a Bishop.

Pope

Direct address: Your Holiness, or Holy Father.
Written address: His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, or better, The Sovereign Pontiff, His Holiness Pius XII.
Formal closing: Kissing the Sacred Foot,
Formal introduction: His Holiness, the Pope.
Protocol: After being introduced, kneel on your left knee and kiss his ring as a sign of respect for his office. Stand when the Pope enters the room, and remain standing unless he invites you to sit. Men should be wearing a suit coat and tie and remove their hats in his presence. Women should wear black dresses and have their heads and arms covered. The same signs of respect should be given when leaving his presence.

If you bring a new white zucchetto with you at a scheduled meeting with the Pope, a customary gesture of amiability is for His Holiness to trade the one he is wearing for the one you offer.

. . . Often the superior of a religious house is called Mother. The titles can vary: Mother Superior, Mother Prioress, Mother Abbess, or for all of them you can simply say Reverend Mother or Your Reverence. The written address would be The Reverend Mother Catherine Marie of the Incarnation, O.C.D., or The Mother Abbess Margaret of the Sacred Heart. O.S.B., with the initials of the community added after the name.

. . . The Rules Simply Stated

Sister
Direct address: Sister Anthony Christine, or Sister.
Written address: Sister Anthony Christine, D.S.P.
Formal introduction: Sister Anthony Christine of the Daughters of St. Paul.

Mother Superior
Direct address: Reverend Mother Francis Louise, Reverend Mother, or Your Reverence.
Written address: The Reverend Mother Francis Louise, D.C.
Formal introduction: The Reverend Mother Francis Louise of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul.

. . . Other normal signs of respect

Because of the great dignity of the priest due to his sacred mission, a special respect is owed him in social life. Men, women and children should rise when a priest enters the room, and remain standing when speaking to him if it is a brief contact. If it is a longer visit, after a cordial greeting all present can be seated, giving the priest the place of honor.

Because of sacred mission of the priest, a special respect is owed him in social life.

I remember so well that whenever the priest would enter the room in my parochial grade school, we would all rise and at a sign from Sister, greet him in unison, “Good morning, Father Kelly.” At another sign, we could sit down again. What order and serenity the observance of these small conventions guarantees even the small society of a classroom.

Back when men and boys more regularly wore real hats, they would remove them and remain uncovered in the presence of a religious or cleric. Today the ubiquitous baseball cap at least should be removed.

American manners have almost always been a bit rough – perhaps because of our tendency to celebrate the spontaneous spirit, and more probably because of a general egalitarian spirit that disdains class distinctions. At any rate, I am convinced most young Americans today truly are unaware that there is a proper order and seating arrangement to be following at Catholic gatherings and home dinner parties. At a baptismal or wedding party or a meeting of a Catholic organization, for example, a clergy present should be treated as guests of honors and in normal circunstances occupy the seat of honor. That place is at the right of the host or hostess, or chairman.

When several clergy are present, the position of honor is determined by rank in the hierarchy, or seniority. Thus, a Bishop takes precedence over a priest, priests take precedence over brothers, and brothers over sisters, an older priest over a younger.

The hierarhcial order is followed in ceremonial processions involving the clergy. Above, a Cardinal's majestic cape is solemnly carried.

For example, at a family dinner celebration at which a Monsignor and a priest are present, the Monsignor would be seated at the right side of the host or hostess, the priest at the left. According to the American etiquette books, the guest of honor would always be placed on the right and left of the hostess. But it is very common practice in Latin countries, and I believe a more organic custom, for a priest to be seated at the right side of the host, that is, the father, who is head of the family. Often, he will even cede his place to the priest, and especially to a Bishop, as a sign of respect and deference.

A mother can help a child to understand this hierarchical order in a very normal and natural way as she prepares for a dinner party and “preps” the family members:
“Mark, please set the table – remember, Father Burns will be sitting at your father’s right. Be sure to stand when Father enters and greet him, ‘Good evening, Father.’ Please don’t just say, 'Hi.' That’s what children without good manners do. And don’t forget to excuse yourself from the table, and when you have permission to leave, tell Father good night and that you enjoyed the evening.”
This kind of day-to-day manners class cultivates a courtesy that is effortless and genuine, which is what good manners by definition are.

Treatment of a Bishop
There is a special protocol for formally greeting a Bishop that needs to be dusted off and put back into daily usage. Because a Bishop has received the fullness of Holy Orders, that is, the power to administer confirmation and Holy Orders as well as all the other Sacraments, he receives a special distinction. He is a Prince of the Church and a Successor of the Apostles.

A Catholic formally greets a Bishop by kissing the ring on his right hand, one of his marks of office. Should circumstances permit, one kneels on one knee to kiss his ring. Kneeling on both knees as a mark of respect is reserved for the Blessed Sacrament when it is exposed.


. . . Consider this advice from American Catholic Etiquette written in 1962:
“It is never wrong, either from a religious or social point of view, to greet a Bishop by kissing his ring. It is done at weddings, funerals, ordinations, any entertaining at which the Bishop is the host, or meetings of Catholic organizations…

“No layman, religious or cleric below the rank of Bishop sits in the presence of a Bishop until he invites one to do so. If seated, one rises when a Bishop approaches to address one and remains standing until he invites one to be seated.

“At a social gathering, the host, hostess or chairman says to the Bishop before all others present, ‘Please be seated, Your Excellency,’ and indicates a seat on his (her) right. If the Bishop arrives after the other guests, all rise when he enters and remains standing until he is seated.” (3)
These marks of respect should also be shown to clerics and religious by the laity, with the exception of kneeling before priests. Post-Vatican II Americans can be surprised to learn that a good custom still followed in well-bred Catholic circles is to kiss the hand of a priest in greeting him, as a signal of respect for the hand that consecrates in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
(3) Kay Toy Fenner, American Catholic Etiquette (Westminister, MD: The Newman Press, 1962), “Honoring a Bishop,” p. 227.

The Vatican II leveling spirit conflicts with Catholic tradition. . . The relaxed and vulgar new attitude in both the treatment and way of being of ecclesiastics has produced bad fruits: disrespect, impoliteness, rudeness, and a great loss of the dignity and sacrality that characterize the religious life. In fact, this modern spirit conflicts with age-old Church teaching on the spiritual life, which counsels that Catholic principles should be applied not only in strictly spiritual matters, but also in the familiar and social life. Catholic perfection also extends to these fields of human activity.

Confirming this, St. Bonaventure argued that the interior life is acquired and preserved through the exterior. Just as in nature, he said, there is never a tree without its leaves and bark, nor a fruit without its rind or husk to serve as protection, so also interior recollection is preserved by the exterior demeanor and ways of being and treatment. When the exterior fails, the other fails also. (4) The reckless experiment of the last decades after Vatican II has proven the truth of his words.

(4) Alphonsus Rodrigues, S.J., Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtue (Chicago: Loyola Un. Press, 1929) Vol. 2, p. 112-3.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Abba,

No one is objecting to using titles out of politeness. No one is telling you what titles to use or omit when speaking to or of traditional clergy. So you can relax on that score.

But you have gone further than express a practice and a preference:

Quote:
The reason, IMHO, is that the title is not about jurisdiction, but about the Ordination


Now, as I have stated, my opinion is diametrically opposite. I do not believe that the mere posssession of valid orders gives one the strict right to an ecclesiastical title. Nor do I believe it comes from jurisdiction in the strict sense of that word. I think the title properly belongs to those to whom the Church has given a certain status or office.

I have defended this view on a very major traditional Catholic forum here in France, which attracts a lot of contributions from clergy and from very learned contributors, and no one was able to offer any evidence against it.

I am short of time at present, but let me observe the obvious fact that with regard to external regalia Canon Law allows a substantial part to bishops as soon as they are named, before their consecration. Take the obvious example of a simple priest who is named bishop of a diocese by the Holy See and takes canonical possession of that diocese but must wait three or four months for his consecration. Nothing could be more ordinary. Now according to your theory, pending his consecration he should be called "Father". However, if the pope writes to him during this period, he uses the full ecclesiastical title of the see of which he is legitimate occupant - which seems to me to refute your claim that what is at issue is valid reception of the order.

Moreover if a Catholic priest has himself validly but unlawfully consecrated bishop in normal times, the letter from Rome notifying him of his excommunication is not addressed to Bishop so-and-so!

Your inference concerning priests without jurisdiction surprises me. As I have said, I don't think that jurisdiction is the issue. "Father" is purely a local and customary title anyway. In some parts of the world secular priests are called "Mr." That includes the profoundly Catholic Brittany and England's ancient Ushaw seminary. A newly ordained priest in normal times has the title "Father" irreespective of whether he can hear confessions or has a particular office. But of course he does belong to the officially recognised clergy of the Church.

John


Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Dear John,

It does not seem you would want a reply, since your stand is very strong. However, reading your reply twice so I could comprehend it, I was not convinced that I must call a Traditional Bishop, "Bishop."

It is my own sense of respect, as you mentioned I wrote. As to jurisdiction, etc., obviously you know much much more than I and understand it better.

I will however, altho' remaining respectful of your stand which I don't challenge in the least, continue to call Traditional Bishops "His Excellency." My choice. I cannot do otherwise without having a sense of personal disrespect - however, I would not judge another, such as you, as disrespectful if you chose to call him "Bishop" due to your studied retort to my opinion.

God Bless you. Ardith

p.s. I did feel you were somewhat heavy on the "retort," John.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post OOPS
OOPS!

I wrote:
QUESTION Could we not say the V-2 sect has NO JURISDICTION?

I meant Could we say the V-2 has NO JURISDICTION?

It was a question, not a statement.

Sorry.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Sorry to come across as heavy, Ardith: it's an incorrigible defect I suffer from :(

I'm certainly not going to try to dissuade you from saying "your excellency" to traditional bishops-of-nowhere. What I wanted to get straight was the partly theological point that titles, special regalia, etc. are not a mere effect of valid episcopal orders.

As to your question: yes we certainly can say that the V2 sect has no jurisdiction except to the very limited extent that this or that validly ordained conciliar priest might in certain cases benefit from supplied jurisdiction, for instance to absolve a dying Catholic.

All jurisdiction in the Church was transmitted by Christ to the Apostolic See and from the Apostolic See to bishops (the hierarchy) and from bishops to priests. The V2 sect, not being the Church, has no access to any source of jurisdiction.

God bless you too!

John


Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.