It is currently Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:25 am




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

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 39-40. Emphasis in the original.

Quote:
Scholion. The personal prerogatives of the apostles.

It was stated above, and with deliberate caution, that Christ willed the transmission, from the apostolic college to an endless line of successors, of the threefold power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling. But not every single thing which God granted the apostles was to be handed down to their successors. The apostles exercised, as it were, a twofold function, that of the apostolate and that of the pastorate or episcopate. They were first and foremost apostles (taking this word in its strict sense), i.e., legates commissioned by God to promulgate all of His revelation, and to start or set up Christ's Church. Then, secondarily, so to speak, they were the first pastors of the Church to which they had given form. It is readily understandable that the apostolic office demanded certain prerogatives which the pastoral office as such did not require. Therefore, as apostles, each of them had (a) a direct divine mission to carry out both of the aforementioned tasks all over the world. Furthermore, (b) they enjoyed the charisms (1) of revelation, (2) of infallibility (in matters pertaining to their mission), and (3) of miracles.

The apostolate was, to begin with, by its very nature an extraordinary gift, confided to these men alone. The gifts conferred on them by reason of their apostolate did not pass to subsequent pastors of the Church, since they were not simply, and in every respect, successors of the apostles, but only in the pastoral office. But the essence of the pastoral office consists precisely in the threefold power of teaching, of the priesthood, and of ruling.


I quote this for several reasons, but the main purpose is to highlight the primacy of faith, the foundation of the Church, promulgated by the Apostles as Apostles, and the secondary function of the pastorate, which defends and hands down this already promulgated body of doctrine.

This is the foundation of the words of Innocent III: "He [the Roman pontiff] can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he 'who does not believe is already judged'" (Sermo 4); see Decreta Gratiani, III, d. 40, c. 8.

It is identically the reason why it is lawful (indeed necessary) to reject errors even when proposed by the Roman Pontiff, as the alleged heresy of Pascal II on investitures was rejected by many bishops, including several canonised saints.

Further on, Van Noort (pp. 71,72) again distinguishes the apostolate, strictly so-called, from the pastorate.

Quote:
Scholion. The relationship of St. Peter to the other apostles and to St. Paul.

1. It was pointed out above (no. 33) that a twofold sort of office can be distinguished in the apostles, namely, the apostolic and the pastoral (episcopal). St. Peter's primacy pertains to the pastoral office, since it is nothing other than the full power to teach and to rule the Church, once the latter has been established. And so, as far as the apostolate itself goes, the other apostles were not inferior to Peter. (This explains, by the way, the meaning of the fathers' frequent assertion that the apostles were on an equal footing.) But in the pastoral office they were subordinate to Peter.

It is true that many theologians teach that each of the apostles received from Christ indefinite or negatively universal jurisdiction. By virtue of this jurisdiction they could exercise episcopal authority over individual churches even though these churches had been founded by another apostle. But even if one accepts this opinion, the jurisdiction of the apostles was on several counts inferior to the fulness of power granted St. Peter. For (a) it was not positively universal, and as a result, they, unlike St. Peter, could not exercise authority over all the churches at once, by issuing, for example, universal laws; (b) it did not extend to the other apostles personally, but these latter were subject to Peter; finally (c) it could not be exercised without reference to Peter, to whom they all had to subject their churches as to the root and foundation of unity.

And anyway, not all theologians accept this teaching on the negatively universal jurisdiction of the apostles. There are those who teach that Christ gave each of the apostles episcopal jurisdiction (under Peter) over only those churches which they themselves had founded. And in the case where one of the apostles may have engaged in activity beyond the limits of this ordinary power, he could have done so as a delegate of Peter and in accordance with Christ's provisions for the needs peculiar to this first stage of the Church's development.

Finally, if it comes right down to the question of the exercise of primacy, it is reasonable to assume that Peter rarely - maybe not even rarely - exercised his power over the other apostles, not because he had no right to do so, but because the outstanding qualities of the apostles gave him little occasion to use that right. In fact, the frequency of charisms and the extraordinary circumstances of this early period must have made it quite unnecessary for him to use his power of primacy very frequently.


I hope that readers are now at least doubtful about the rhetoric of some that condemns the resistance of error by non-sede traditionalists as "recognise and resist". The obvious implication of that rhetoric is false, pernicious, and unjust.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:04 am
Profile E-mail

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

the important thing is A) not to say that the Pope is wrong as Pope (ie if he teaches something to the whole Church) and not as a private person; B) not to disobey to the Pope as Pope and not as a private person.

Archbishop Lefebvre just did this. He said that the Pope as Pope is wrong ("The Pope is modernist"; "The Pope promotes the ecumenism"); and he disobey to him as Pope (in not accepting Vatican II as Paul VI had said and in consecrating bishops against the will of John Paul II).

This is not catholic.

When Lefebvre siad that the Pope is modernist, he said it in reference to the things that Paul VI and John Paul II did as Vicars of Christ and not as private persons or as private doctors. When he accused the Council or when he criticized Assisi he spoke of the Pope as public person, as teacher of all Christians!

This is not catholic. And this is not Bellarmine who was convinced that the Pope would never have fallen into heresy nor as public person nor as private person.

It is just for the sacred principle for which the faith comes before anything else that the theological position of Archbishop Lefebvre was heterodox. Indeed, it is a truth of faith that the Pope is infallible when he governs and teaches to the universal Church (see what it teaches the first Vatican Council).


Cordially


Ps: It is interesting when Van Noort says: "the jurisdiction of the apostles ... it could not be exercised without reference to Peter, to whom they all had to subject their churches as to the root and foundation of unity".
We can note that it is the same thing for the bishops who nowadays have received the power of jurisdiction by a true Pope (for example Pius XII) and that, after his dead, they have been, or they are, in communion with a non-Pope (for example Paul VI or Benedict XVI). From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter. Therefore at this moment, in the world, nobody habitually exercises the power of jurisdiction.


Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:47 pm
Profile E-mail

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

Quote:
We can note that it is the same thing for the bishops who nowadays have received the power of jurisdiction by a true Pope (for example Pius XII) and that, after his dead, they have been, or they are, in communion with a non-Pope (for example Paul VI or Benedict XVI). From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter. Therefore at this moment, in the world, nobody habitually exercises the power of jurisdiction.


Hi Gabriele,

Your statement, "From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter," is built on an assumption that you have rather than doctrine. If a bishop lawfully appointed remains united to the Church, i.e. has not lost the faith or is not schismatic, or has not been excommunicated then he has not been deprived of his office. You are assuming that if a bishop erroneously follows a false claimant, thinking he is pope, then he loses his office. This has no basis in theology or the history of the church. Secondly, it appears that you are stating that if a bishop, (or perhaps any Catholic) adheres to to the post Vatican II claimants then they have either lost the faith or have become a schismatic. This is built on an assumption, not on the the teachings of the Church regarding heresy and schism or canon law.

Can you provide a reference to support the idea you are espousing? The idea appears novel to me, as I have not come across it in any reading I have ever done. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I would like to see a statement from an approved source stating as you have that "From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter."

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:09 am
Profile

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

thank you for your questions that are very useful to deepen a very important issue. And sorry if I was not very clear.

Mike wrote:
Your statement, "From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter," is built on an assumption that you have rather than doctrine. If a bishop lawfully appointed remains united to the Church, i.e. has not lost the faith or is not schismatic, or has not been excommunicated then he has not been deprived of his office. You are assuming that if a bishop erroneously follows a false claimant, thinking he is pope, then he loses his office. This has no basis in theology or the history of the church.


For a bishop to be in communion with a non-Pope means, from an objective point of view, do not exercise the power of jurisdiction in communion with a Pope. This does not mean that the bishop is schismatic or that he makes a sin (if he is in good faith), but this fact affects on the exercise of his power of jurisdiction because as Van Noort says: jurisdiction must be exercised with reference to the Pope (as the apostles did with reference to Peter). In the case that we analyze it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter, just because the bishop is in communion, and therefore he acts in communion, with a non-Pope.
Does such a bishop exercise his power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter? No. By consequence, how is it possible that his power of jurisdiction is an apostolic power?
His error (all subjective error) is irrelevant, because otherwise every bishop who is admittedly not in communion with the Pope, but in good faith, he would retains the power of jurisdiction.
Note that Van Noort does not speak of a power of jurisdiction exercised necessarily against the will of a Pope, but merely “without reference” to him.

Mike wrote:
Secondly, it appears that you are stating that if a bishop, (or perhaps any Catholic) adheres to to the post Vatican II claimants then they have either lost the faith or have become a schismatic. This is built on an assumption, not on the the teachings of the Church regarding heresy and schism or canon law.


Absolutely I do not say this, Mike. I believe that a great part of the faithful (and of the bishops, even if it is more difficult) which adhere to Vatican II has conserved the faith in their hearts. Their good faith apologizes them! As people said once: ignorance is the eighth sacrament!
For to became a schismatic it is necessary the subjective element of the pertinacity, but such a element is not necessary for not exercise the power of jurisdiction without reference to the Pope. This power concerns the esternal link with the Church. It is a fact all juridical which may be independent from the state of sin of the man who exercises it.
If a bishop, for any error, does not recognise publicly the true Pope just elected and he continues to exercise the power of jurisdiction without reference to him he does not exercise an apostolic power, a power which derives from Our Lord. This bishop loses that power. Is it not so for you, Mike?

Mike wrote:
Can you provide a reference to support the idea you are espousing? The idea appears novel to me, as I have not come across it in any reading I have ever done. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I would like to see a statement from an approved source stating as you have that "From the moment they enter into communion with a non-Pope they cannot exercise the jurisdiction because it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter."


Dear Mike, for example, the same statement of Van Noort quoted by John.

I think that our difficulties of understanding depend on these factors:

- the awareness that conciliar “Popes” are not Popes OBJECTIVELY. This does not means that the Sede Vacante is a dogma, because it does not exist a proposition of the Church on this matter. So this does not mean that if a man does not share the Cassiciacum Thesis then he is not catholic. This objectivity is simply the direct consequence of the FACT that Benedict XVI does not profess integrally the Catholic Faith in his “Magisterium”. This is objective. And since it is a truth of faith that the Magisterium of a Pope is infallible and pure and unblemished then it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that Benedict XVI is not Pope. This conclusion is theologically certain.
If a person becomes aware that Benedict XVI teaches the Error in his “Magisterium”, this person can not believe that Benedict XVI is Pope. It seems to me very very simple. And, on the other hand, how can this man do the act of faith? He may believe to what the Church has always taught, thinking that Benedict is not Pope, and that’s ok. He may believe to what Benedict teaches and then he abandons the faith. He may believe to what the Church has always taught, thinking that Benedict is at the same time Pope: in this case he must to explain how is it possible that a Pope teaches the Error in his Magisterium. The Lefebvrists resort to minimalist doctrines in matter of infallibility and, doing this, they (objectively) abandon the Catholic Faith for which, I repeat, the Magisterium of the Pope is always infallible when he teaches in matter of faith and moral to the universal Church.

- the knowledge of the nature of the power of jurisdiction. I would be happy to investigate this matter.

Cordially


Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

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

What does "objective" mean when you use it?

Please read this article carefully, and tell us whether you see any problem with it: http://strobertbellarmine.net/commonfallacy.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:12 am
Profile E-mail

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

What does "objective" mean when you use it?

Please read this article carefully, and tell us whether you see any problem with it: http://strobertbellarmine.net/commonfallacy.html



Dear John,

"Objective" means real and incontrovertible fact which is independent from the way of thinking, from the tastes or subjective feelings. An objective judgment is a judgment founded on the reality, on the object itself. Examples of objective things: the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the fact that I am born, etc. Examples of subjective things: the Franciscan order is more beautiful than the Dominican, spaghetti are the best food in the world, etc.

Thanks to have posted the link of the article of John Daly. I will read it of course when I have time. For the moment you can tell me whether you see any problem among the things that I say.

Greetings


Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:18 pm
Profile E-mail

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

I think it is a jump to state that a bishop who erroneously follows the antipope loses jurisdiction. In our present case, it appears to me that the bishops in question, are trying to remain united to Peter by adhering to those they (wrongly) believe have held and do hold the papal office.

We are not talking about a bishop going rogue and ignoring a lawful pope, or bishops such as the Greeks who severed themselves from the Church, we are talking about bishops, who, in the greatest fog of confusion in the history of the Church have wrongly identified who the pope is.

Another point to consider, it cannot automatically be assumed that the bishops in question adhere to the heresies of the post Vatican II church. The act of adhering to the man, Benedict XVI, does not in and of itself, cause one to believe heretical or erroneous ideas taught by him.

In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.

It may be that these bishops either do not understand or have not followed the teachings of the post Vatican II anti-popes, or it may also be possible that they believe they are not bound to the teachings, but they are bound to the man they believe is Peter, much like the SSPX.

In order for a lawfully appointed bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate. We may privately study the words and actions of these bishops and draw our conclusions, but we must be slow and careful in our approach. In the case of the post Vatican II claimants, we have a two-fold approach to determine their status. We may more easily make a determination about them by observing their official teaching and laws, and state they have done things that popes cannot do, therefore they do not possess the office. In the case of bishops, we must observe their words and actions and determine if they are indeed heretics. In some cases a determination may be obvious but in others I think it is a very complex process.

For example, I do not know about some of the lives, teachings and acts of the Pius XII bishops living in South America, Africa or Asia. I do not know them, I have not read anything about them, and I cannot to any serious degree even read their language in many cases. The only thing I do know about them is that they supposedly adhere to Benedict XVI. To be honest, I do not even know that. They may not adhere to him but may keep it private. I do not know if they have kept the Faith, or have abandoned it. I have not heard anything about their words, writings or actions. In short, I have insufficient data to make any judgment whatsoever about them.

We do know as a matter of doctrine that the hierarchy is essential to the Church, and it is impossible that the hierarchy be completely ended. We also know that the hierarchy is real, and is not an idea or only a potential. There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future. They cannot all disappear, but by that we cannot conclude that they may be diminished dramatically in number. There was a time in the world that there we had only 11 bishops. It is not impossible for the Church's hierarchy to fall to any number of bishops, but it cannot fall to zero.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
"Objective" means real and incontrovertible fact which is independent from the way of thinking, from the tastes or subjective feelings. An objective judgment is a judgment founded on the reality, on the object itself. Examples of objective things: the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the fact that I am born, etc. Examples of subjective things: the Franciscan order is more beautiful than the Dominican, spaghetti are the best food in the world, etc.

Thanks to have posted the link of the article of John Daly. I will read it of course when I have time. For the moment you can tell me whether you see any problem among the things that I say.

Greetings


Gabriele, I have the same problem with your statements that Mike has just highlighted so eloquently in his masterful summary.

"Objective" refers to the object; subjective to the subject. So it might be broad daylight, but there'd be nothing wrong with the statement that "For Jim, who is completely blind, it was night." This expresses the subjective, the view of the subject. Objectively, we would say, it is day.

I think you and I are on the same page so far. However we part company when you attempt to employ these terms to describe anything more complex, anything that is composed of several parts.

For example, according to your use of the terms, a man who innocently and accidentally runs over and kills another man who is lying on the road in the middle of the night, has committed "objective murder" and various consequences would necessarily follow. He would not be eligible to enter the seminary, for example, as he has spilled human blood. He would be rightly imprisoned on a charge of murder. These consequences are analogous to your comment that a bishop who mistakenly adheres to a false pope, thinking him to be a true pope, would not exercise true jurisdiction.

This is to empty the term "objective" of any value at all. What is the object in the case of the bishop and the false pope? It is really just the existence of a false claimant? No, it is more complex than that. Objectively, there are several elements, each of them essential to the case, and all must be brought into consideration in order to be able to state what the "object" is, and therefore what the "objective reality" is.

This is analogous to the wrong use of "material" vs "formal" which was corrected by Cardinal Billot. A "material heretic" is one in whom heresy is complete, but morally innocent. A man who errs purely on a question of fact as to what the Church teaches is not a heretic at all, not even materially.

Now consider the term "heresy". We commonly say that any statement which directly conflicts with a dogma is a "heresy" and this use of the term is fine. But we ought to understand that the term is ambiguous when found in a sentence like this: "Jim expressed a heresy." It may mean, "Jim innocently misunderstood what the Church teaches, and said something heretical." Or it may mean, "Jim committed the sin and crime of heresy." Would it be useful to say that "objectively Jim committed heresy"? Well, it would depend on what actually happened. If Jim was merely mistaken in fact, it would be quite misleading to say "Jim objectively committed heresy" because there was no act of heresy at all, merely a mistake of fact.

Saying that men in our day "objectively adhere to a false pope" misleadingly simplifies a complex object.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:28 pm
Profile E-mail

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

I will go fast to the things which are more considerable for me, but if I do not answer to something that you consider as considerable, please indicate it to me.


Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I think it is a jump to state that a bishop who erroneously follows the antipope loses jurisdiction. In our present case, it appears to me that the bishops in question, are trying to remain united to Peter by adhering to those they (wrongly) believe have held and do hold the papal office.


The union with Peter is not sufficient. It is necessary the union with the Pope.

Mike wrote:
We are not talking about a bishop going rogue and ignoring a lawful pope, or bishops such as the Greeks who severed themselves from the Church, we are talking about bishops, who, in the greatest fog of confusion in the history of the Church have wrongly identified who the pope is.


I know but in any case it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter.

Mike wrote:
Another point to consider, it cannot automatically be assumed that the bishops in question adhere to the heresies of the post Vatican II church. The act of adhering to the man, Benedict XVI, does not in and of itself, cause one to believe heretical or erroneous ideas taught by him.


To be externally (publicly) in communion with Vatican II church means to approve externally (publicly) heretical or erroneous ideas.

Mike wrote:
In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.


This is a consequence of the absence of a true Pope and it is a proof that Vatican II church have not the catholic faith.

Mike wrote:
It may be that these bishops either do not understand or have not followed the teachings of the post Vatican II anti-popes, or it may also be possible that they believe they are not bound to the teachings, but they are bound to the man they believe is Peter, much like the SSPX.


To believe that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council is not bounding it is heretical.

Mike wrote:
In order for a lawfully appointed bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate.


According to Van Noort, for example, for to lose jurisdiction it is sufficient do not exercise this power with reference to the Pope.

Mike wrote:
We may privately study the words and actions of these bishops and draw our conclusions, but we must be slow and careful in our approach. In the case of the post Vatican II claimants, we have a two-fold approach to determine their status. We may more easily make a determination about them by observing their official teaching and laws, and state they have done things that popes cannot do, therefore they do not possess the office. In the case of bishops, we must observe their words and actions and determine if they are indeed heretics. In some cases a determination may be obvious but in others I think it is a very complex process.


To judge heretic a man is very difficult in our case and this is one of the reasons for which I hold as wrong total sedevacantism. But to observe that externally the conciliar “popes” do not teach catholic doctrine or the conciliar “bishops” who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope they actually exercise it in communion with a non-Pope (and by consequence without reference to the Pope), well, all this is clear and under our eyes. These are incontrovertible facts.

Mike wrote:
For example, I do not know about some of the lives, teachings and acts of the Pius XII bishops living in South America, Africa or Asia. I do not know them, I have not read anything about them, and I cannot to any serious degree even read their language in many cases. The only thing I do know about them is that they supposedly adhere to Benedict XVI. To be honest, I do not even know that. They may not adhere to him but may keep it private. I do not know if they have kept the Faith, or have abandoned it. I have not heard anything about their words, writings or actions. In short, I have insufficient data to make any judgment whatsoever about them.


Then, how can you say that they exercise an apostolic power?
However, Mike, it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church. If not, please, give me the name of one bishop which received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with conciliar church. The presence of this communion is sufficient to deprive this bishop of his apostolic power, because it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter. It is not necessary to know if this man is a heretic.


Mike wrote:
We do know as a matter of doctrine that the hierarchy is essential to the Church, and it is impossible that the hierarchy be completely ended. We also know that the hierarchy is real, and is not an idea or only a potential. There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future. They cannot all disappear, but by that we cannot conclude that they may be diminished dramatically in number. There was a time in the world that there we had only 11 bishops. It is not impossible for the Church's hierarchy to fall to any number of bishops, but it cannot fall to zero.


1. Is the doctrine for which “There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future”, is this doctrine present in the Magisterium? Or is this doctrine a theological opinion? If it is present in the Magisterium, please, give me the reference.
2. I want to give for true this doctrine, for a moment. Well, please give me the name of one bishop who exercises the power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter nowadays. Otherwise we really speak of ideas.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
"Objective" means real and incontrovertible fact which is independent from the way of thinking, from the tastes or subjective feelings. An objective judgment is a judgment founded on the reality, on the object itself. Examples of objective things: the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the fact that I am born, etc. Examples of subjective things: the Franciscan order is more beautiful than the Dominican, spaghetti are the best food in the world, etc.

Thanks to have posted the link of the article of John Daly. I will read it of course when I have time. For the moment you can tell me whether you see any problem among the things that I say.

Greetings


Gabriele, I have the same problem with your statements that Mike has just highlighted so eloquently in his masterful summary.

"Objective" refers to the object; subjective to the subject. So it might be broad daylight, but there'd be nothing wrong with the statement that "For Jim, who is completely blind, it was night." This expresses the subjective, the view of the subject. Objectively, we would say, it is day.

I think you and I are on the same page so far. However we part company when you attempt to employ these terms to describe anything more complex, anything that is composed of several parts.

For example, according to your use of the terms, a man who innocently and accidentally runs over and kills another man who is lying on the road in the middle of the night, has committed "objective murder" and various consequences would necessarily follow. He would not be eligible to enter the seminary, for example, as he has spilled human blood. He would be rightly imprisoned on a charge of murder. These consequences are analogous to your comment that a bishop who mistakenly adheres to a false pope, thinking him to be a true pope, would not exercise true jurisdiction.

This is to empty the term "objective" of any value at all. What is the object in the case of the bishop and the false pope? It is really just the existence of a false claimant? No, it is more complex than that. Objectively, there are several elements, each of them essential to the case, and all must be brought into consideration in order to be able to state what the "object" is, and therefore what the "objective reality" is.

This is analogous to the wrong use of "material" vs "formal" which was corrected by Cardinal Billot. A "material heretic" is one in whom heresy is complete, but morally innocent. A man who errs purely on a question of fact as to what the Church teaches is not a heretic at all, not even materially.

Now consider the term "heresy". We commonly say that any statement which directly conflicts with a dogma is a "heresy" and this use of the term is fine. But we ought to understand that the term is ambiguous when found in a sentence like this: "Jim expressed a heresy." It may mean, "Jim innocently misunderstood what the Church teaches, and said something heretical." Or it may mean, "Jim committed the sin and crime of heresy." Would it be useful to say that "objectively Jim committed heresy"? Well, it would depend on what actually happened. If Jim was merely mistaken in fact, it would be quite misleading to say "Jim objectively committed heresy" because there was no act of heresy at all, merely a mistake of fact.

Saying that men in our day "objectively adhere to a false pope" misleadingly simplifies a complex object.


Dear John, onestly it seems to me that you sophisticate things that are very very simples. We are not talking now of heresy, but as you admit in some way in your last proposition, of the FACT of the public communion between a bishop and a false Pope.
Well, I simply ask: is there nowadays in the world a bishop who recived the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with Benedict XVI?
Second question: if this bishop does not exist, is it necessary to be a heretic or a schismatic for not exercise the apostolic power of jurisdiction? Or, as it says Van Noort, is it sufficient that it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter? And in the case of this bishop where is the reference to the successor of Peter if he is in communion with a non-Pope?

About the Sede Vacante.
Given for catholic doctrine that a Pope in his Magisterium can not teach heresies or errors to the universal Church in matter of faith and moral, I simply ask: is it true that Benedict XVI teaches errors in his "Magisterium"? If yes, I must to conclude that Benedict XVI is not a true Pope. This is an incontrovertible FACT, if he teaches errors.
Well, if you do not share that this is an incontrovertible FACT, please, do you tell me why? Perhaps, according to you, does Benedict XVI not teach errors in his "Magisterium"?

Cordially

Ps: sorry for the mistakes but I have wrote very very fast.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Well, I simply ask: is there nowadays in the world a bishop who recived the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with Benedict XVI?

None that YOU may know of, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either. Others may know better than you, but, in the interests of keeping them alive, cannot tell you...or anyone else for that matter.

Try to practice a little more humility, please.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, onestly it seems to me that you sophisticate things that are very very simples. We are not talking now of heresy, but as you admit in some way in your last proposition, of the FACT of the public communion between a bishop and a false Pope.


My whole point is that we're NOT talking univocally about "communion with a false pope". That term is ambiguous. It can apply to a man like St. Vincent Ferrer who was always firmly within the Church and a true member of it, and visibly so, despite being a Legate of Benedict XIII; and it can apply equally well to a man who leaves the Church to follow an anti-pope because of some heresy or other to which he is personally attached, for example.

The two cases are entirely different. One is a mistake of fact; the other is an act of schism.

In the present case there is a third factor present which makes the description of what is being done by sedeplenist traditional Catholics even more complicated. And that is the incredible difficulty in explaining the present situation in toto, so that actually what somebody like Bishop Tissier does is adhere provisionally to Benedict simply because he thinks that the alternative seems heretical and schismatic, the whole situation being desperately mysterious, and without judging those who adopt a different view (see his letter to Fr. Schoonbroot).

Gabriele wrote:
Well, I simply ask: is there nowadays in the world a bishop who recived the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with Benedict XVI?


Anybody who retains the true faith, recognising Benedict as pope only because he thinks he must do so to remain a Catholic, is not in any real way "in communion with Benedict XVI".

Gabriele wrote:
Second question: if this bishop does not exist, is it necessary to be a heretic or a schismatic for not exercise the apostolic power of jurisdiction? Or, as it says Van Noort, is it sufficient that it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter?


Van Noort does not say that. He is referring to the different theories about jurisdiction and its relationship to the Successor of Peter, and using a phrase which can accommodate them all.

Gabriele wrote:
Given for catholic doctrine that a Pope in his Magisterium can not teach heresies or errors to the universal Church in matter of faith and moral, I simply ask: is it true that Benedict XVI teaches errors in his "Magisterium"? If yes, I must to conclude that Benedict XVI is not a true Pope. This is an incontrovertible FACT, if he teaches errors.
Well, if you do not share that this is an incontrovertible FACT, please, do you tell me why? Perhaps, according to you, does Benedict XVI not teach errors in his "Magisterium"?


Yes, that's my view. But the sedeplenist will reply, does Benedict teach with authority at all? Does he bind the faithful to accept under pain of damnation any particular proposition? If so, which proposition?

This is not a crazy point, either. The very heart of the Vatican II revolution was precisely the refusal by the Nopes to impose the faith as a law, to which are attached sanctions. This refusal was the principal cause of the collapse of faith at Vatican II and afterwards. It is the cause to which is adequately proportioned the effect we witnessed. It is also why it was so hard for men who rejected the heresies to be sure that they were really Paul VI's heresies, and to what degree papal authority was even involved. It was a masterful deception.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, onestly it seems to me that you sophisticate things that are very very simples. We are not talking now of heresy, but as you admit in some way in your last proposition, of the FACT of the public communion between a bishop and a false Pope.


My whole point is that we're NOT talking univocally about "communion with a false pope". That term is ambiguous. It can apply to a man like St. Vincent Ferrer who was always firmly within the Church and a true member of it, and visibly so, despite being a Legate of Benedict XIII; and it can apply equally well to a man who leaves the Church to follow an anti-pope because of some heresy or other to which he is personally attached, for example.

The two cases are entirely different. One is a mistake of fact; the other is an act of schism.

In the present case there is a third factor present which makes the description of what is being done by sedeplenist traditional Catholics even more complicated. And that is the incredible difficulty in explaining the present situation in toto, so that actually what somebody like Bishop Tissier does is adhere provisionally to Benedict simply because he thinks that the alternative seems heretical and schismatic, the whole situation being desperately mysterious, and without judging those who adopt a different view (see his letter to Fr. Schoonbroot).


And someone adheres to Islam simply because he thinks that Muhammad is the prophet. But where is the truth?

John Lane wrote:
Anybody who retains the true faith, recognising Benedict as pope only because he thinks he must do so to remain a Catholic, is not in any real way "in communion with Benedict XVI".


You totally forget the legal and visible aspect of the Church. There is no use having holy bishops who externally approve of errors. These men are not pastors.

John Lane wrote:
Van Noort does not say that. He is referring to the different theories about jurisdiction and its relationship to the Successor of Peter, and using a phrase which can accommodate them all.


But he uses her and he approves her.

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Given for catholic doctrine that a Pope in his Magisterium can not teach heresies or errors to the universal Church in matter of faith and moral, I simply ask: is it true that Benedict XVI teaches errors in his "Magisterium"? If yes, I must to conclude that Benedict XVI is not a true Pope. This is an incontrovertible FACT, if he teaches errors.
Well, if you do not share that this is an incontrovertible FACT, please, do you tell me why? Perhaps, according to you, does Benedict XVI not teach errors in his "Magisterium"?


Yes, that's my view. But the sedeplenist will reply...


From what you say, dear John, it seems to me that you would have had to respond: "No it is not an incontrovertible fact, it is only my view...".

John Lane wrote:
But the sedeplenist will reply, does Benedict teach with authority at all? Does he bind the faithful to accept under pain of damnation any particular proposition? If so, which proposition?

This is not a crazy point, either. The very heart of the Vatican II revolution was precisely the refusal by the Nopes to impose the faith as a law, to which are attached sanctions. This refusal was the principal cause of the collapse of faith at Vatican II and afterwards. It is the cause to which is adequately proportioned the effect we witnessed. It is also why it was so hard for men who rejected the heresies to be sure that they were really Paul VI's heresies, and to what degree papal authority was even involved. It was a masterful deception.


Dear John, with all respect for you, this is lefebvrist insanity. As I have already shown to you, conciliar "popes" have repeatedly said to Archbishop Lefebvre that he was bound to Vatican II. These "popes" knew what doctrines Lefebvre did not want to accept, and they said to him that he had to accept them. It is the same nowadays between Fellay and Ratzinger.

In the end, an important thing I want to put in evidence. If a Pope says that a certain thing is in the Revelation or that she is connected to the Revelation we must to believe. Automatically. It is not necessary that the Pope specifies that we are bound. We are automatically bound. Because it makes no sense that the Church, or the Pope alone, says that a certain thing is in the Revelation or that she is connected to the Revelation but that it is not necessary to believe this is true.
We must to consider the things for what they are. In other words, we must to consider the things OBJECTIVELY, because otherwise we fall in voluntarism.


Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
And someone adheres to Islam simply because he thinks that Muhammad is the prophet. But where is the truth?


Where the Church says it is. When did she judge that Benedict is not pope?

This is a good example of your blindness to the true definition of the "object". If the object is a condemned sect, or a condemned person, adherence is objectively schismatic or heretical. If the object is a baptised Christian whom we judge to have left the Church (e.g. Benedict) then adherence to him is not univocally "objectively" schismatic. The word "objectively" in such a case is ambiguous.

Did you read the article to which I directed your attention?

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Anybody who retains the true faith, recognising Benedict as pope only because he thinks he must do so to remain a Catholic, is not in any real way "in communion with Benedict XVI".


You totally forget the legal and visible aspect of the Church. There is no use having holy bishops who externally approve of errors. These men are not pastors.


And this is nonsense. Read this article for examples of pastors who professed heretical propositions and did not leave the Church: http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresyhistory.html

I am keenly aware of the visible nature of the Church. It's why I am a sedevacantist, and it's also why I'm not a Guerardian or a "dogmatic sedevacantist".

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Van Noort does not say that. He is referring to the different theories about jurisdiction and its relationship to the Successor of Peter, and using a phrase which can accommodate them all.


But he uses her and he approves her.


Sorry, Gabriel, I don't understand this comment.

Gabriele wrote:
From what you say, dear John, it seems to me that you would have had to respond: "No it is not an incontrovertible fact, it is only my view...".


Well what is an "incontrovertible" fact? Who is making the judgement? I am, or you are, not the Church. Last time I checked, I was fallible. How about you?

Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, with all respect for you, this is lefebvrist insanity. As I have already shown to you, conciliar "popes" have repeatedly said to Archbishop Lefebvre that he was bound to Vatican II. These "popes" knew what doctrines Lefebvre did not want to accept, and they said to him that he had to accept them. It is the same nowadays between Fellay and Ratzinger.


Is it? Then you will find it a simple matter to quote Ratzinger to prove your point.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
And someone adheres to Islam simply because he thinks that Muhammad is the prophet. But where is the truth?


Where the Church says it is. When did she judge that Benedict is not pope?
This is a good example of your blindness to the true definition of the "object". If the object is a condemned sect, or a condemned person, adherence is obectively schismatic or heretical. If the object is a baptised Christian whom we judge to have left the Church (e.g. Benedict) then adherence to him is not univocally "objectively" schismatic. The word "objectively" in such a case is ambiguous.

So when the infallible Church did not exist, the existence of God was a controvertible fact. Is it so according to you? Please, answer, I want to understand.

It seems to me that, from a part, you depreciate the dignity of the intellect, because it seems that for you it is impossible to achieve the truth on the Sede Vacante without the intervention of the Church. From the other part, you amplify excessively the power of the simples faithful giving them the right to say that the Apostolic See is totally vacant because Ratzinger is a heretic.

John Lane wrote:
Did you read the article to which I directed your attention?

Not again.

John Lane wrote:
And this is nonsense. Read this article for examples of pastors who professed heretical propositions and did not leave the Church: http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresyhistory.html

I am keenly aware of the visible nature of the Church. It's why I am a sedevacantist, and it's also why I'm not a Guerardian or a "dogmatic sedevacantist".


Guerardism takes into account the visibility of the Church; on the contrary, total sedevacantism does not do it. The first, in fact, requires a judgment of the Church for to say that the See is totally vacant. The second proceeds without the intervention of the Church.

John Lane wrote:
Sorry, Gabriel, I don't understand this comment.

No problem John. I do not agree when you say that Van Noort “does not say that”.

John Lane wrote:
Well what is an "incontrovertible" fact? Who is making the judgement? I am, or you are, not the Church. Last time I checked, I was fallible. How about you?


But I have spoke of an “incontrovertible fact”. So if you did not agree, then you had to respond “No” and not “Yes”.

For the rest, I am very very fallible. On the contrary, a true Pope is not fallible (and Benedict XVI is fallible). By consequence Benedict XVI can not be a true Pope. And I have not understand again why for you it is not incontrovertibly so.

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, with all respect for you, this is lefebvrist insanity. As I have already shown to you, conciliar "popes" have repeatedly said to Archbishop Lefebvre that he was bound to Vatican II. These "popes" knew what doctrines Lefebvre did not want to accept, and they said to him that he had to accept them. It is the same nowadays between Fellay and Ratzinger.


Is it? Then you will find it a simple matter to quote Ratzinger to prove your point.


1. 1.1 For what reason there is not an accord between Ratzinger and Fellay about you?

1.2 Ratzinger, when he was “cardinal”, in 1985, in an interview-book with Vittorio Messori “Rapporto sulla fede” said that to reject the authority of Vatican II is the same thing that to reject the authority of the Council of Trent. I think that he has not changed idea. Otherwise, why do not accept Lefebvrists in counciliar church?

2. And what do you say about what Paul VI and John Paul II said to Lefebvre on the authority and obedience due to Vatican II?


Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:07 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
So when the infallible Church did not exist, the existence of God was a controvertible fact. Is it so according to you? Please, answer, I want to understand.

It seems to me that, from a part, you depreciate the dignity of the intellect, because it seems that for you it is impossible to achieve the truth on the Sede Vacante without the intervention of the Church. From the other part, you amplify excessively the power of the simples faithful giving them the right to say that the Apostolic See is totally vacant because Ratzinger is a heretic.


Gabriele, did you read the two articles by JS Daly to which I referred you?

We disgaree on criteriology and on law. You appear to have exactly the same confusion in these fields as Guerard des Lauriers. He held that nobody can know a heretic for sure without the intervention of the Church, which is dead wrong, and also that all can know with certitude that the Conciliar popes do not will the good of the Church.

Broadly, there are several kinds of judgements which you are not distinguishing. Those which I, for example, can make of doctrine and fact, and those which I can make of persons. You also do not seem to distinguish between the status of different judgements. A judgement that I make is essentially different in some way from a judgement made by the Church.

In relation to doctrine, I may be able to see that something is directly incompatible with sacred doctrine and therefore I must reject it, under pain of sin. In the case of doctrine opposed to dogma, the sanction is loss of faith, and if public, membership in the Church.

However, if I am convinced that something is de fide (e.g. baptism of desire) and another is not, and he has what appear to be some real grounds for his doubt, until the Church defines the matter I cannot hold that the other person is a heretic. I can say that he sins by rejecting known Christian doctrine, but I cannot say he has left the Church.

A doctrinal point has a different status depending upon whether it was actually divinely revealed (or merely inferred from revelation), and upon whether or not the Church has made it incontrovertibly clear that it has been divinely revealed.

In relation to fact, I may make similar judgements, with security. That is, I may be able to achieve certitude. But again, this is my own judgement, not a public judgement. It obliges nobody else, unlike a public judgement, which obliges all.

In relation to persons, I may be able to achieve certitude that an individual is a heretic - that is, he knows what is Catholic belief, and yet he chooses his own view anyway. Such a judgement would suffice for my own safety - I can fly from the heretic. But such a judgement has no public status, it does not oblige anybody else.

However, in relation to persons, it is a much more difficult thing to achieve certitude than it is with respect to doctrinal contradiction, for obvious reasons. Further, when we begin judging the relations between persons, severe limitations appear. Many episodes of Church history illustrate these limitations. The Great Western Schism is rich with examples. Was it right to assert that St. Vincent Ferrer was "objectively" schismatic? If not, why not? Surely because the "object" was not schism at all, it was a mistake, a mistake of fact.


Gabriele wrote:
For the rest, I am very very fallible. On the contrary, a true Pope is not fallible (and Benedict XVI is fallible). By consequence Benedict XVI can not be a true Pope. And I have not understand again why for you it is not incontrovertibly so.


It's because the various acts of a pope are not all of the same character, and you can see this by consulting any manual of dogmatic theology. So, you or I may be convinced that this or that act of a Conciliar pope ought to have been infallible if he was truly pope, but Archbishop Lefebvre may lawfully have disagreed without sinning and certainly without heresy.

So we don't have to form the same judgement as Archbishop Lefebvre, but we have to recognise what his rights were, and what his true views were, and we ought to be unwilling to judge him, and only do so when necessary.

This is not merely a matter of charity, or even of justice. It goes right to the heart of the nature of the Church, who are its members, where it is, what persons it consists of.

Gabriele wrote:
1. 1.1 For what reason there is not an accord between Ratzinger and Fellay about you?


There are many reasons why Ratzinger may refuse to grant Bishop Fellay an office in the Church. Has he mentioned heresy as the reason? No.

Gabriele wrote:
1.2 Ratzinger, when he was “cardinal”, in 1985, in an interview-book with Vittorio Messori “Rapporto sulla fede” said that to reject the authority of Vatican II is the same thing that to reject the authority of the Council of Trent. I think that he has not changed idea.


What you need is Benedict (not Ratzinger) or Paul VI or John Paul II, asserting that something from Vatican II is de fide - either directly, or in equivalent terms - or if not de fide then "infallible".

Gabriele wrote:
2. And what do you say about what Paul VI and John Paul II said to Lefebvre on the authority and obedience due to Vatican II?


What I say is that none of the Conciliar popes spoke of it as true popes spoke of true councils. They very carefully did not do so.

Why was that? Because they don't believe in authority infallibly declaring truth so that the subject is obliged to receive this truth under pain of damnation. They believe that "truth recommends itself" etc. This is in many ways their core heresy, and they learned it from the Synod of Pistoia, grandfather of Vatican II.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:57 am
Profile E-mail

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

I will go fast to the things which are more considerable for me, but if I do not answer to something that you consider as considerable, please indicate it to me.


Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I think it is a jump to state that a bishop who erroneously follows the antipope loses jurisdiction. In our present case, it appears to me that the bishops in question, are trying to remain united to Peter by adhering to those they (wrongly) believe have held and do hold the papal office.


The union with Peter is not sufficient. It is necessary the union with the Pope.

Mike wrote:
We are not talking about a bishop going rogue and ignoring a lawful pope, or bishops such as the Greeks who severed themselves from the Church, we are talking about bishops, who, in the greatest fog of confusion in the history of the Church have wrongly identified who the pope is.


I know but in any case it lacks the reference to the successor of Peter.

Mike wrote:
Another point to consider, it cannot automatically be assumed that the bishops in question adhere to the heresies of the post Vatican II church. The act of adhering to the man, Benedict XVI, does not in and of itself, cause one to believe heretical or erroneous ideas taught by him.


To be externally (publicly) in communion with Vatican II church means to approve externally (publicly) heretical or erroneous ideas.

Mike wrote:
In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.


This is a consequence of the absence of a true Pope and it is a proof that Vatican II church have not the catholic faith.

Mike wrote:
It may be that these bishops either do not understand or have not followed the teachings of the post Vatican II anti-popes, or it may also be possible that they believe they are not bound to the teachings, but they are bound to the man they believe is Peter, much like the SSPX.


To believe that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council is not bounding it is heretical.

Mike wrote:
In order for a lawfully appointed bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate.


According to Van Noort, for example, for to lose jurisdiction it is sufficient do not exercise this power with reference to the Pope.

Mike wrote:
We may privately study the words and actions of these bishops and draw our conclusions, but we must be slow and careful in our approach. In the case of the post Vatican II claimants, we have a two-fold approach to determine their status. We may more easily make a determination about them by observing their official teaching and laws, and state they have done things that popes cannot do, therefore they do not possess the office. In the case of bishops, we must observe their words and actions and determine if they are indeed heretics. In some cases a determination may be obvious but in others I think it is a very complex process.


To judge heretic a man is very difficult in our case and this is one of the reasons for which I hold as wrong total sedevacantism. But to observe that externally the conciliar “popes” do not teach catholic doctrine or the conciliar “bishops” who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope they actually exercise it in communion with a non-Pope (and by consequence without reference to the Pope), well, all this is clear and under our eyes. These are incontrovertible facts.

Mike wrote:
For example, I do not know about some of the lives, teachings and acts of the Pius XII bishops living in South America, Africa or Asia. I do not know them, I have not read anything about them, and I cannot to any serious degree even read their language in many cases. The only thing I do know about them is that they supposedly adhere to Benedict XVI. To be honest, I do not even know that. They may not adhere to him but may keep it private. I do not know if they have kept the Faith, or have abandoned it. I have not heard anything about their words, writings or actions. In short, I have insufficient data to make any judgment whatsoever about them.


Then, how can you say that they exercise an apostolic power?
However, Mike, it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church. If not, please, give me the name of one bishop which received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with conciliar church. The presence of this communion is sufficient to deprive this bishop of his apostolic power, because it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter. It is not necessary to know if this man is a heretic.


Mike wrote:
We do know as a matter of doctrine that the hierarchy is essential to the Church, and it is impossible that the hierarchy be completely ended. We also know that the hierarchy is real, and is not an idea or only a potential. There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future. They cannot all disappear, but by that we cannot conclude that they may be diminished dramatically in number. There was a time in the world that there we had only 11 bishops. It is not impossible for the Church's hierarchy to fall to any number of bishops, but it cannot fall to zero.


1. Is the doctrine for which “There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future”, is this doctrine present in the Magisterium? Or is this doctrine a theological opinion? If it is present in the Magisterium, please, give me the reference.
2. I want to give for true this doctrine, for a moment. Well, please give me the name of one bishop who exercises the power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter nowadays. Otherwise we really speak of ideas.


Dear Gabriele,

I will number my answers in reply to your statements or questions to make this easier.

1. You said, "The union with Peter is not sufficient. It is necessary the union with the Pope." What pope are you referring to? The last I checked we are in agreement that there is not now and has not been a pope for 50 years or so. In the state of sedevacante, one must remain united with the popes of the past, but you cannot remain united to something which does not exist. I believe those bishops, priests and laity who remain Catholic are united to the popes of the past, and only say they remain in union to the post-conciliar popes, either because they do not understand the issues involved or if they do understand think there is a way to remain united to the claimants without compromising their faith, as we discussed above.

2. You said "To be externally (publicly) in communion with Vatican II church means to approve externally (publicly) heretical or erroneous ideas. " This is an assumption on your part. You are assuming that a Catholic who has not lost his faith, automatically approves heretical and erroneous ideas by being in "communion with the Vatican II church." Your theory falls because in reality there are tens of thousand of Catholics around the world who explicitly do not approve of the Vatican II errors, and remain in communion with what they think is the Catholic Church. As we have discussed above, there are reasons why some Catholics think they can adhere to the post conciliar claimants, and remain Catholic. They are then by definition not schismatics, and they are not heretics, so that leaves us with one option, they are Catholics.

3. You said, "To believe that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council is not bounding it is heretical." True. But I thought we are in agreement that Vatican II was not an ecumenical council of the Church. Because some Catholics are duped into thinking it is one, and then refusing to believe its errors, means that they lack sound logic, not the Catholic Faith.

4. You said, "To judge heretic a man is very difficult in our case and this is one of the reasons for which I hold as wrong total sedevacantism. But to observe that externally the conciliar “popes” do not teach catholic doctrine or the conciliar “bishops” who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope they actually exercise it in communion with a non-Pope (and by consequence without reference to the Pope), well, all this is clear and under our eyes. These are incontrovertible facts."

I really think you are stretching Van Noort to fit your theory. I would like to see what the theologians say about the scenerio of bishops lawfully appointed by a true pope, who during a state of sedevacante, wish to remain united to Peter, through the action of remaining united to an imposter they think is Peter.

5. You said, "Then, how can you say that they exercise an apostolic power?
However, Mike, it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church. If not, please, give me the name of one bishop which received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with conciliar church. The presence of this communion is sufficient to deprive this bishop of his apostolic power, because it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter. It is not necessary to know if this man is a heretic."

It is interesting that you can have certainty about something you know nothing about. We have not even identified who these bishops are yet, and you say, "it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church." You are treating the conciliar church as though it is a condemned sect. It has not been condemned by the Church, and therefore, there are Catholics who erroneously think this is the Catholic Church. I think you would agree that the organization has been trying to mimic the Church, they have their own "pope" and bishops, and currently have control over most of the buildings owned by the Church, including the Vatican itself.

Again, you keep saying that the bishops lose their jurisdiction because they lack reference to the successor of Peter, and again I say that there is currently not a successor to Peter, therefore the point is moot.

6. You said, "Is the doctrine for which “There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future”, is this doctrine present in the Magisterium? Or is this doctrine a theological opinion? If it is present in the Magisterium, please, give me the reference."

I posted this on the Bellarmine Forums some time ago. http://www.sedevacantist.org/forums/vie ... 11&p=10121 This teaching is part of the doctrine of Apostolicity of the Church. From the text:

Quote:
Q. How does it appear that the Church of Christ is Apostolical?
A. By the word Apostolical is meant, that the Church of Christ is ruled by the apostles, and the doctrine of faith was taught by them as they received it from Christ, the powers of priesthood were exercised by them, and that she must continue to the end of the world in the profession of the same faith and doctrine, and in a continual uninterrupted succession of priesthood, so that the apostolic doctrine, priesthood, and mission remain with her forever. That the Church shall always preserve the apostolical doctrine, we have seen above, when explaining the rule of faith; and that she shall never want a succession of true pastors, inheriting the same priestly powers and mission which she received at first from the apostles, is manifest from these considerations: First, Because true pastors, properly empowered, and lawfully sent, are a necessary part of the Church, and instituted by Jesus Christ, “for the perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv.; consequently, such pastors will never be wanting in her, according to that of the prophet: “Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all the day and al the night they shall never hold their peace,” Is. 1xii. 6.
boldfacing added

7. You said, "2. I want to give for true this doctrine, for a moment. Well, please give me the name of one bishop who exercises the power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter nowadays. Otherwise we really speak of ideas."

It is not necessary for me to be able to name the bishop or bishops, but it is necessary to believe that they are alive and in the world today. If you were living in a desert island, with no means of communication, would you still have to believe the Church is still in the world outside your island even though you cannot see it? It is not necessary for me to see, except with eyes of Faith. In the excerpt I gave you above, Fr. McGovern witnessed to the teaching of the Church, and my only job is to believe it, even if everything around me is trying to tell me otherwise. That is our challenge in our times. We must keep the Faith despite the appearances.

It seems, according to your theory, that the hierarchy has failed, and that there is no longer in the world today even a single member of the hierarchy. I believe that if you made the statement in times of a pope, that "the church can exist without the hierarchy, and it is possible for the entire hierarchy to cease to exist for a given time." then the statement would be in my view be deemed heretical. If you think I am wrong on this, provide any approved sources who hold to your idea.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:46 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
You are treating the conciliar church as though it is a condemned sect. It has not been condemned by the Church, and therefore, there are Catholics who erroneously think this is the Catholic Church. I think you would agree that the organization has been trying to mimic the Church, they have their own "pope" and bishops, and currently have control over most of the buildings owned by the Church, including the Vatican itself.


Mike, your post was again excellent, but I want to explore this part a little.

What exactly is the Conciliar church? In order to answer that, let's ask ourselves, when was it founded, when did it appear in public, when did it achieve what many or most sedes assert - control of every see, every building, every "office" of the Church in all of their material elements?

I'd like Gabriele to tell us which Church the members of the hierarchy belonged to in, say, 1962, 1966, 1971, and 1980. Was every see possessed materially or de facto by an official of "the Conciliar church" in 1962? Any of the other dates? If so, on what basis is this assertion made?

The "default" attitude of trads, and especially of sedes, is to regard the entire official structure of the Church as Modernist, and then (perhaps) make exceptions. Even Archbishop Lefebvre adopted that view at least late in his life. And it's a legitimate and useful shorthand for the situation in which we have to live. But the theological, canonical, and properly ecclesiological approach must necessarily be the opposite. We start by adhering to the Catholic Church as it certainly was in 1955, just to pick an arbitrary date, and then we recognise that see after see was occupied by open Modernists as the revolution progressed. But many weren't occupied by open Modernists. Many were retained by what appear to have remained clearly Catholic men, such as Cardinal Siri in Genoa.

I certainly understand that for somebody who believes that Vatican II was manifestly heretical, all who accepted its documents as Catholic thereby left the Church, so that apart from Bishop de Castro Mayer perhaps, all sees fell vacant de jure at least in circa 1966. But that's not my view, and I doubt too many others really adopt it either. In any case it means that the hierarchy was extinguished at the latest in 1991 when de Castro Mayer passed away. Such a conclusion is heretical.

What seems to have happened is much more diffcult to explain, much more obscure. It seems apparent that it was possible to accept Vatican II, with reservations (as many bishops did), and even the chief reforms that followed in its wake (e.g. the new liturgy) without thereby leaving the Church. This seems to have been the case with Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and several others at least. Perhaps it was the case with hundreds of bishops. If so, where was "the Conciliar church"?

That's harder to answer, in such a scenario. I have an answer, and I have expressed it many times, over many years, and most recently in my article "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church", but I recognise that it isn't a simple answer. That is, I see that for people who are not familiar with ecclesiology, and with proper distinctions in general, it may not be convincing.

I'd like your thoughts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Mike wrote:
You are treating the conciliar church as though it is a condemned sect. It has not been condemned by the Church, and therefore, there are Catholics who erroneously think this is the Catholic Church. I think you would agree that the organization has been trying to mimic the Church, they have their own "pope" and bishops, and currently have control over most of the buildings owned by the Church, including the Vatican itself.


Mike, your post was again excellent, but I want to explore this part a little.

What exactly is the Conciliar church? In order to answer that, let's ask ourselves, when was it founded, when did it appear in public, when did it achieve what many or most sedes assert - control of every see, every building, every "office" of the Church in all of their material elements?

I'd like Gabriele to tell us which Church the members of the hierarchy belonged to in, say, 1962, 1966, 1971, and 1980. Was every see possessed materially or de facto by an official of "the Conciliar church" in 1962? Any of the other dates? If so, on what basis is this assertion made?

The "default" attitude of trads, and especially of sedes, is to regard the entire official structure of the Church as Modernist, and then (perhaps) make exceptions. Even Archbishop Lefebvre adopted that view at least late in his life. And it's a legitimate and useful shorthand for the situation in which we have to live. But the theological, canonical, and properly ecclesiological approach must necessarily be the opposite. We start by adhering to the Catholic Church as it certainly was in 1955, just to pick an arbitrary date, and then we recognise that see after see was occupied by open Modernists as the revolution progressed. But many weren't occupied by open Modernists. Many were retained by what appear to have remained clearly Catholic men, such as Cardinal Siri in Genoa.

I certainly understand that for somebody who believes that Vatican II was manifestly heretical, all who accepted its documents as Catholic thereby left the Church, so that apart from Bishop de Castro Mayer perhaps, all sees fell vacant de jure at least in circa 1966. But that's not my view, and I doubt too many others really adopt it either. In any case it means that the hierarchy was extinguished at the latest in 1991 when de Castro Mayer passed away. Such a conclusion is heretical.

What seems to have happened is much more diffcult to explain, much more obscure. It seems apparent that it was possible to accept Vatican II, with reservations (as many bishops did), and even the chief reforms that followed in its wake (e.g. the new liturgy) without thereby leaving the Church. This seems to have been the case with Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and several others at least. Perhaps it was the case with hundreds of bishops. If so, where was "the Conciliar church"?

That's harder to answer, in such a scenario. I have an answer, and I have expressed it many times, over many years, and most recently in my article "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church", but I recognise that it isn't a simple answer. That is, I see that for people who are not familiar with ecclesiology, and with proper distinctions in general, it may not be convincing.

I'd like your thoughts.


Dear John,

Like yourself, I have reflected on this question for years. I will give you my thoughts and then maybe we can compare notes. I do not think any serious study has ever been done to define the "conciliar church," or "the Novus Ordo church," or the "Vatican II church." I think that the fact that it goes by many names leads to the idea that it's very name is not even clearly defined.

The founding date is also another complex matter in my opinion. I would put out some possible ideas, and you may have others too.

1. October 28, 1958: election of John XXIII.
2. April 11, 1963: date of encyclical Pacem In Terris, the first official act of heresy given to the Church by a "pope."
3. June 21, 1963: election of Paul VI.
4. December 7, 1965: date of conclusion and implementation of Vatican II.
5. April 3, 1969: date of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.

But, even if a date can be established, it would not be the beginning of a condemned sect, in that I mean that Catholics may in either a state of confusion or ignorance, maintain communion with this organization, but keep the Faith and by that their status in the Church.

It seems to me that during the 1960's the following groups emerged prior to, during, and after the council.
1. modernists/heretics: those who created the new religion, and sought to lure Catholics into it.
2. Catholic resistance: This would be all of those catholics who began to see the problems, yet to the best of my knowledge all recognized the papal claims of John XXIII and Paul VI, at least until around 1970 or so. The resistance itself took different turns. Cardinal Ottaviani sought to remain under Paul VI, while Archbishop Lefebvre originally sought to "experiment with tradition" under Paul VI, but gradually saw the only alternative was to separate from Paul VI in practice and begin his own seminary, and form a group of priests who would operate outside the authority of the anti-pope and his organization.
3. The large body of Catholics who kept the faith, but were generally clueless about what was going on. History shows that as time went on, this group either gave up the practice of the faith, left to join non-catholic sects, became united to the modernists/liberals, or educated themselves about their faith, and either became "traditionalists" or tried to keep the faith and remain under the man they thought was pope.

Another point to add, and I think you are in agreement, is that whatever date we first had an anti-pope, then that would not automatically be the date that the entire hierarchy fell into heresy. From my understanding, some bishops were either involved with or readily joined the heretics, and by that left the Church. The next group, in my view were not involved with the heretics, but became weak or silent, and their status is questionable. The last group resisted the changes or did not want the changes. Some were more vocal than others.

Conclusions:

1. It is difficult to determine the founding date of the Vatican II church.
2. Either way, whatever the founding date of the conciliar church, it began sometime during the 1960's, and perhaps completed with its final triumph in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo in 1969.
3. Because this heretical organization left the Catholic world leaderless, there was no official action taken against it. It insidiously and gradually strengthened its control over the structures of the Church, the dioceses and religious orders through the 1970's.
4. Due to a lack of official action, the ordinary defenses of the Church, i.e. the pope, the holy office, and the bishops, Catholics cannot be accused of abandoning the church by remaining in communion with the organization, as long as, they have the Faith, and secondly, they do not as of yet understand the conflict between this organization (which calls itself the Catholic Church) and the Catholic Church. This of course would also require that the individuals would also erroneously believe that this organization is the Catholic Church, and that their very act of remaining united to it, is to remain united to the Church.
5. The principles of #4 apply to all Catholics, bishops, priests and laity.

--------------------------
John, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject also. I think this entire topic is long overdue.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:08 am
Profile
Site Admin

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

That's a great summary of facts and principles, in my opinion.

Just one quibble.
Mike wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre originally sought to "experiment with tradition" under Paul VI, but gradually saw the only alternative was to separate from Paul VI in practice and begin his own seminary, and form a group of priests who would operate outside the authority of the anti-pope and his organization.


This is not quite accurate.

Archbishop Lefebvre established his seminary with "ecclesiastical approval" and sought to maintain that approval (I think for pastoral reasons) as long as possible. It was the Modernists who cut it off, and the Archbishop was quite careful to ensure that whatever rupture occurred was always their acts, and that in contrast to their behaviour he was seen to be "passive" and blameless.

You can see this same policy all through until 1988, when he finally decided that he would have to make a definitive break (he was foreshadowing this as early as 1981). By definitive, I mean an act on his part that would be seen to be the cause of rupture, rather than merely remaining passive under attack by the Modernists. He was certainly a clever fox.

The other aspect of this which is important is the meaning of his phrase, "the experiment of tradition". This was not, as many assert, some kind of willingness to consider Tradition as merely one legitimate option in the big tent of Conciliarism. It was an argumentum ad hominem against the Conciliarists. It originated in the mid-70s amidst all the "experimentation" that was being permitted and encouraged by the Modernists. The Archbishop simply took them at their word and demanded similar consideration, which of course they refused. In this way their hypocrisy, inconsistency, and dishonesty was manifested.

A parallel to this can be seen in Garrigou-Lagrange's comments on religious liberty in the 1950s.
Quote:
Liberty of religions allows us to frame an argument ad hominem, against those, that is to say, who profess liberty of religions yet harass the true Church (secular and tending to socialism) and directly or indirectly forbid its worship (communist societies). That argument ad hominem is correct, and the Catholic Church does not disdain it but rather urges it in defence of her rightful liberty. But from that it does not follow that liberty of religions, considered in itself, can be defended unconditionally by Catholics, for in itself it is absurd and wicked: truth and error cannot have the same rights.


And:
Quote:
An example of the use of the argument ad hominem is given by Pius XI writing to the ordinaries of China on 15 June 1926: "Everybody knows, and it is confirmed by the whole of history, that the Church accommodates herself to the constitutions and laws proper to each nation...and demands nothing more for the preachers of the Gospel and the faithful than the common law, security and liberty." It should be noted that Pius XI is not demanding the common law for the Church as such and in general, but for the missionaries and the Christians in a particular country with as yet no knowledge of Christ.


Read this document (Letter to Cardinal Seper) for a full understanding of the approach: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_15.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
What exactly is the Conciliar church? In order to answer that, let's ask ourselves, when was it founded, when did it appear in public, when did it achieve what many or most sedes assert - control of every see, every building, every "office" of the Church in all of their material elements?


I'd like to ask another question. When was the Anglican church founded? Was it when Henry VIII declared himself the "head of the Church in England", the publication of the Book of Common Prayer, the formal excommunication of Elizabeth?

When was the formerly Catholic parish where an Englishman was baptized no longer available to him if he remained in the Catholic Church?

When were the formerly Catholic parishes where today's sedevacantists were baptized no longer available to them?

I would submit that there is no single historical date in which we can point except for convenience's sake in the "founding" of Anglicanism or in the "founding" of Conciliarism.

For convenience, I generally point to 1960 because it is a nice round number and because, it seems, most books published before that date are generally reliably Catholic while books published after that date start to become more and more questionable to the point that an Imprimatur given to a book today can easily be a mark of heterodoxy.

The process in which a person who rejected the heresies (and schism--though that was more cloudy at the time) of Anglicanism probably began with the declaration of Henry and ended with the excommunication of Elizabeth. It seems to me that this second event is when a Catholic who knew his faith would have started to reject the new religion.

In the case of Conciliarism, I think the process began with the election of Roncalli who took the name of an anti-pope and called for an Ecumenical Council to open the Church up to the world and is still ongoing. Finding the ending event will be more difficult because Conciliarism still holds many trappings of Catholic tradition and insists that it is the Catholic Church. I think the event that will absolutely delineate the absolute break (that no Catholic can overlook) will be a formal acceptance by the Conciliar church of homosexual unions or the ordination of women (and both of these events are being called upon by cardinals of Conciliarism).

Of course, the theological arguments and corruption of priests and bishops began years before the founding processes of these two sects began. I don't know how long the break with Rome was being contemplated by the theologians in England, but the theological arguments for Modernism and evolution of doctrine had been underway for a century or two before the founding of the Conciliar church.

The bottom line is that the absolute take-over of the "material elements" of the Catholic Church is probably just about complete, though no specific date can be identified; while the absolute take-over of all Catholic souls is still ongoing and, more and more, those Catholics who reject Conciliarism are fleeing from the false religion that calls itself "Catholic".


Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin

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

A most interesting and helpful contribution too, thank you!

The English Schism is an excellent study for the principles which apply, and I agree with you that there are lengthy periods in the development of the entity which became the Anglican Church during which it is difficult to say what entity is what, or at least, who belonged to which entity.

I suggest that we keep carefully distinguished the questions of salvation and membership in the Church. That is, just as with the English Schism, the question of who could be saved was quite distinct from who remained a member of the Church; and it is the latter question alone which determines the identity and location of the true Church, since the Church is a visible body of men. Clearly those who left the Church jeopardised their salvation - that is not in question - but it is equally clear that it was possible to sin mortally without actually leaving the Church.

Consider the situation prior to the judgement of the Church. An Englishman who realised that Henry had separated himself from Catholic unity by the Act of Supremacy, and that the Oath was clearly opposed to true Catholic unity, as St. Thomas More realised, could not in conscience cooperate in Henry's sin, and if he had, he'd have lost the state of grace himself. But a man who did not realise the seriousness of the situation could take the Oath in good conscience, as many did (and More was determined in his refusal to judge them for doing so - he knew from years of study how difficult the theological problem was).

I am reasonably sure that the Church never did declare in equivalent words at least, during Henry VIII's reign, that Henry had disappeared into schism and that the "official" church in England was a sect, but of course Henry and Cranmer were excommunicated (11 July 1533).

Surely the only way to understand the situation is to say that the Catholic Church continued to exist in England, and it consisted of all those who continued to profess the true faith and remained subject to their lawful pastors. It is equally clear that a sect was begun under Henry, however it is much harder to say exactly who was a member of it beyond Henry himself, Cranmer, and, arguably, the Oath-taking bishops, on the grounds that they are presumed to know the doctrine of the Church and therefore could not have taken the Oath without pertinacity. But even in their case we wonder, because men like Bishop Stephen Gardiner seemed sincerely confused about the meaning of the doctrine of papal supremacy (and wrote a book explaining it in a heretical manner), yet later retracted and showed by his five years' imprisonment in the Tower under Edward VI to be a man of character and principle in religion. Was he really a schismatic under Henry? I'm not sure that Catholic authors have formed any consensus on the matter.

In the English Schism we note a similar obscurity as we have witnessed in the development of the Concilar sect.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
So when the infallible Church did not exist, the existence of God was a controvertible fact. Is it so according to you? Please, answer, I want to understand.

It seems to me that, from a part, you depreciate the dignity of the intellect, because it seems that for you it is impossible to achieve the truth on the Sede Vacante without the intervention of the Church. From the other part, you amplify excessively the power of the simples faithful giving them the right to say that the Apostolic See is totally vacant because Ratzinger is a heretic.


Gabriele, did you read the two articles by JS Daly to which I referred you?

We disgaree on criteriology and on law. You appear to have exactly the same confusion in these fields as Guerard des Lauriers. He held that nobody can know a heretic for sure without the intervention of the Church, which is dead wrong, and also that all can know with certitude that the Conciiliar popes do not will the good of the Church.

Yes, as I have already demonstrated, Conciliar “popes” are not true Popes. They do not make the good of the Church, this is an evident fact, because they teach the contrary of what the Popes have always taught even in matter of faith (see, for example the new doctrine of religious liberty).
Instead, I have not said that “nobody can know a heretic for sure without the intervention of the Church”. Indeed I believe that until the Church does not intervene with a declaration we can not depose Conciliar “popes” or “bishops” saying that the See are totally vacant, because until this intervention it remains a link (evern if very very weak) between these men and the Church.
I have not read the articles again, because I am very busy. I will do.

John Lane wrote:
Broadly, there are several kinds of judgements which you are not distinguishing. Those which I, for example, can make of doctrine and fact, and those which I can make of persons. You also do not seem to distinguish between the status of different judgements. A judgement that I make is essentially different in some way from a judgement made by the Church.

In relation to doctrine, I may be able to see that something is directly incompatible with sacred doctrine and therefore I must reject it, under pain of sin. In the case of doctrine opposed to dogma, the sanction is loss of faith, and if public, membership in the Church.

However, if I am convinced that something is de fide (e.g. baptism of desire) and another is not, and he has what appear to be some real grounds for his doubt, until the Church defines the matter I cannot hold that the other person is a heretic. I can say that he sins by rejecting known Christian doctrine, but I cannot say he has left the Church.

A doctrinal point has a different status depending upon whether it was actually divinely revealed (or merely inferred from revelation), and upon whether or not the Church has made it incontrovertibly clear that it has been divinely revealed.

In relation to fact, I may make similar judgements, with security. That is, I may be able to achieve certitude. But again, this is my own judgement, not a public judgement. It obliges nobody else, unlike a public judgement, which obliges all.

In relation to persons, I may be able to achieve certitude that an individual is a heretic - that is, he knows what is Catholic belief, and yet he chooses his own view anyway. Such a judgement would suffice for my own safety - I can fly from the heretic. But such a judgement has no public status, it does not oblige anybody else.

However, in relation to persons, it is a much more difficult thing to achieve certitude than it is with respect to doctrinal contradiction, for obvious reasons. Further, when we begin judging the relations between persons, severe limitations appear. Many episodes of Church history illustrate these limitations. The Great Western Schism is rich with examples. Was it right to assert that St. Vincent Ferrer was "objectively" schismatic? If not, why not? Surely because the "object" was not schism at all, it was a mistake, a mistake of fact.

Dear John, I think we disagree in philosophy of knowledge too. Indeed, it seems that you do not want to recognize that man can achieve a truth with his Reason.
On the contrary, God has endowed man of the reason with which he can achieve some truth (not the truths that are only truth of faith). I give you the example of the truth (that is also a truth of reason) of the existence of God. Well, in ancient, before the infallible judgment of the Catholic Church, it was possible to achieve the certitude of the existence of God with the only reason. This certitude (the same word says it) was valid not only “for me” or “for you” or “for the man that achieved her”. It was valid for all. It was a truth of reason. In other terms, the existence of God was an incontrovertible fact.
Please, listen to the Church (Vatican Council, 1870):

“The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason …” .

And again:

”If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema”.

Human reason can not know all things, but there are some things that she can know with certitude. And things that the reason knows with certitude are incontrovertible things.

John Lane wrote:
It's because the various acts of a pope are not all of the same character, and you can see this by consulting any manual of dogmatic theology. So, you or I may be convinced that this or that act of a Conciliar pope ought to have been infallible if he was truly pope, but Archbishop Lefebvre may lawfully have disagreed without sinning and certainly without heresy.

We can take the concrete example of the new doctrine of religious liberty of Vatican II (Lefebvre too was contrary to this doctrine). Well, do you think that a doctrine connected with the Revelation and approved by a Pope “in the Holy Spirit” is not infallible?

John Lane wrote:
So we don't have to form the same judgement as Archbishop Lefebvre, but we have to recognise what his rights were, and what his true views were, and we ought to be unwilling to judge him, and only do so when necessary.
This is not merely a matter of charity, or even of justice. It goes right to the heart of the nature of the Church, who are its members, where it is, what persons it consists of.

I do not judge his conscience, but his public action and his wrong theology. And I have never said that Lefebvre have sinned or that he was a heretic.

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
1. 1.1 For what reason there is not an accord between Ratzinger and Fellay about you?


There are many reasons why Ratzinger may refuse to grant Bishop Fellay an office in the Church. Has he mentioned heresy as the reason? No.

Please, John, everyone knows that there are not an accord between SSPX and Ratzinger because Ratzinger want that the SSPX accepts Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, the subsistit in, the new doctrine on Judaism, etc) and the SSPX does not want. Ratzinger considers Vatican II as binding in the matters that I have quoted and that Lefebvre and the new SSPX do not want to accept. It seems to me that you don’t want to admit the evidence.

John Lane wrote:
What you need is Benedict (not Ratzinger) or Paul VI or John Paul II, asserting that something from Vatican II is de fide - either directly, or in equivalent terms - or if not de fide then "infallible".

It is the same Vatican II that asserts this:

“This doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously”.

Do you think that a doctrine closely related to the Divine Revelation is not infallible?

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
2. And what do you say about what Paul VI and John Paul II said to Lefebvre on the authority and obedience due to Vatican II?

What I say is that none of the Conciliar popes spoke of it as true popes spoke of true councils. They very carefully did not do so.

Only who does not want to see can say this.

« Comment aujourd’hui quelqu’un pourrait-il se comparer à saint Athanase [allusion à Mgr Lefebvre] tout en osant combattre un concile comme le deuxième concile du Vatican, qui ne fait pas moins autorité, qui est même sous certains aspects plus important encore que celui de Nicée? » (Montini: Lettre à Mgr Lefebvre, 29 juin 1975).

« Pour sa part, le Siège apos¬tolique ne poursuivait qu’un seul but dans ces conversations avec vous [Mgr Lefebvre]: favoriser et sauvegarder cette unité dans l’obéissance à la Révélation divine, traduite et interprétée par le magistère de l’Église, notamment dans les vingt et un conciles œcuméniques, de Nicée à Vatican II » (lettre de Wojtyla à Mgr Lefebvre, 9 juin 1988).

John Lane wrote:
Why was that? Because they don't believe in authority infallibly declaring truth so that the subject is obliged to receive this truth under pain of damnation. They believe that "truth recommends itself" etc. This is in many ways their core heresy, and they learned it from the Synod of Pistoia, grandfather of Vatican II.

See above.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:05 pm
Profile E-mail

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

I will number my answers in reply to your statements or questions to make this easier.

1. You said, "The union with Peter is not sufficient. It is necessary the union with the Pope." What pope are you referring to? The last I checked we are in agreement that there is not now and has not been a pope for 50 years or so. In the state of sedevacante, one must remain united with the popes of the past, but you cannot remain united to something which does not exist. I believe those bishops, priests and laity who remain Catholic are united to the popes of the past, and only say they remain in union to the post-conciliar popes, either because they do not understand the issues involved or if they do understand think there is a way to remain united to the claimants without compromising their faith, as we discussed above.

Dear Mike,
now there is not a Pope, of course. But how can a man to be united (externally) to the Popes of the past if he is (externally) united to a false Pope?
Internally, it is possible (because he may be unaware of what he does), but externally it is not possible. He professes a doctrine incompatible with the doctrine always taught by the Popes of the past.

Mike wrote:
2. You said "To be externally (publicly) in communion with Vatican II church means to approve externally (publicly) heretical or erroneous ideas. " This is an assumption on your part. You are assuming that a Catholic who has not lost his faith, automatically approves heretical and erroneous ideas by being in "communion with the Vatican II church." Your theory falls because in reality there are tens of thousand of Catholics around the world who explicitly do not approve of the Vatican II errors, and remain in communion with what they think is the Catholic Church. As we have discussed above, there are reasons why some Catholics think they can adhere to the post conciliar claimants, and remain Catholic. They are then by definition not schismatics, and they are not heretics, so that leaves us with one option, they are Catholics.

They may remain Catholics, but they have not reasons for to remain in communion with “popes” that teach errors. Give me one reason.

Mike wrote:
3. You said, "To believe that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council is not bounding it is heretical." True. But I thought we are in agreement that Vatican II was not an ecumenical council of the Church. Because some Catholics are duped into thinking it is one, and then refusing to believe its errors, means that they lack sound logic, not the Catholic Faith.

Yes, of course Mike!!! I am very happy that you have said this. We are agree!
I see that also you hold that “they lack sound logic”. It is what I try to explain to John. He thinks that Lefebvre had the better theology (theo-logic) in front of the crisis.
I admire Lefebvre as man and I think that he conserved Catholic Faith in his heart (not externally!), that he wanted make only the good for the Church, but his theology and his action as bishop was very very wrong.

Mike wrote:
4. You said, "To judge heretic a man is very difficult in our case and this is one of the reasons for which I hold as wrong total sedevacantism. But to observe that externally the conciliar “popes” do not teach catholic doctrine or the conciliar “bishops” who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope they actually exercise it in communion with a non-Pope (and by consequence without reference to the Pope), well, all this is clear and under our eyes. These are incontrovertible facts."

I really think you are stretching Van Noort to fit your theory. I would like to see what the theologians say about the scenerio of bishops lawfully appointed by a true pope, who during a state of sedevacante, wish to remain united to Peter, through the action of remaining united to an imposter they think is Peter.

Ok, Mike. I accept your opinion. I am happy to note that also for you – as for me – we have in front of our eyes a scenario never seen before. Indeed, History repeats itself, but never in the same identical way.
I’d like to study in deep the issues related to the power of jurisdiction.

Mike wrote:
5. You said, "Then, how can you say that they exercise an apostolic power?
However, Mike, it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church. If not, please, give me the name of one bishop which received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with conciliar church. The presence of this communion is sufficient to deprive this bishop of his apostolic power, because it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter. It is not necessary to know if this man is a heretic."

It is interesting that you can have certainty about something you know nothing about.

I only say that I do not know only one bishop who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that now is not in communion with Benedict XVI. If you know, please give me the name and I will take conscience that he exists. But until nobody tell me something about this presumptive bishop I have the right, I think, to believe that he does not exists. We are not in a desert Island.
You seem, on the contrary, to exclude that it is possible that such a bishop might not exist (admitting that you have “insufficient data”):
“For example, I do not know about some of the lives, teachings and acts of the Pius XII bishops living in South America, Africa or Asia. I do not know them, I have not read anything about them, and I cannot to any serious degree even read their language in many cases. The only thing I do know about them is that they supposedly adhere to Benedict XVI. To be honest, I do not even know that. They may not adhere to him but may keep it private. I do not know if they have kept the Faith, or have abandoned it. I have not heard anything about their words, writings or actions. In short, I have insufficient data to make any judgment whatsoever about them” (Mike).


Mike wrote:
We have not even identified who these bishops are yet, and you say, "it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church." You are treating the conciliar church as though it is a condemned sect. It has not been condemned by the Church, and therefore, there are Catholics who erroneously think this is the Catholic Church. I think you would agree that the organization has been trying to mimic the Church, they have their own "pope" and bishops, and currently have control over most of the buildings owned by the Church, including the Vatican itself. .

I use the expression “conciliar church” to be brief and because – if I am not wrong – the same conciliar "popes" use this expression sometime. But I want to specify that for me the “conciliar church” is not a condemned sect, just because the Church is not intervened on this matter. More, I think that conciliar "popes" and "bishops" are materially "popes" and materially "bishops".
On the contrary, there are many total sedevacantists who treat the “conciliar church” as a condemned sect. This happens in many fora, especially in the Francophone world. This is incorrect and it often depends from the mentality of total sedevacantists which always do everything regardless from the judgment of the Church.

Mike wrote:
Again, you keep saying that the bishops lose their jurisdiction because they lack reference to the successor of Peter, and again I say that there is currently not a successor to Peter, therefore the point is moot.

See the first point.

Mike wrote:
6. You said, "Is the doctrine for which “There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future”, is this doctrine present in the Magisterium? Or is this doctrine a theological opinion? If it is present in the Magisterium, please, give me the reference."

I posted this on the Bellarmine Forums some time ago. http://www.sedevacantist.org/forums/vie ... 11&p=10121 This teaching is part of the doctrine of Apostolicity of the Church. From the text:

Quote:
Q. How does it appear that the Church of Christ is Apostolical?
A. By the word Apostolical is meant, that the Church of Christ is ruled by the apostles, and the doctrine of faith was taught by them as they received it from Christ, the powers of priesthood were exercised by them, and that she must continue to the end of the world in the profession of the same faith and doctrine, and in a continual uninterrupted succession of priesthood, so that the apostolic doctrine, priesthood, and mission remain with her forever. That the Church shall always preserve the apostolical doctrine, we have seen above, when explaining the rule of faith; and that she shall never want a succession of true pastors, inheriting the same priestly powers and mission which she received at first from the apostles, is manifest from these considerations: First, Because true pastors, properly empowered, and lawfully sent, are a necessary part of the Church, and instituted by Jesus Christ, “for the perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv.; consequently, such pastors will never be wanting in her, according to that of the prophet: “Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all the day and al the night they shall never hold their peace,” Is. 1xii. 6.
boldfacing added

I do not see a teaching of the Magisterium in that thread, Mike. Perhaps, it escapes to me. Please quote it directly.

Mike wrote:
7. You said, "2. I want to give for true this doctrine, for a moment. Well, please give me the name of one bishop who exercises the power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter nowadays. Otherwise we really speak of ideas."

It is not necessary for me to be able to name the bishop or bishops, but it is necessary to believe that they are alive and in the world today. If you were living in a desert island, with no means of communication, would you still have to believe the Church is still in the world outside your island even though you cannot see it? It is not necessary for me to see, except with eyes of Faith. In the excerpt I gave you above, Fr. McGovern witnessed to the teaching of the Church, and my only job is to believe it, even if everything around me is trying to tell me otherwise. That is our challenge in our times. We must keep the Faith despite the appearances.

You have not again quoted a teaching of the Catholic Magisterium that proposes the doctrine on Apostolicity that you hold as true.
And we are not in a desert island.

Mike wrote:
It seems, according to your theory, that the hierarchy has failed, and that there is no longer in the world today even a single member of the hierarchy. I believe that if you made the statement in times of a pope, that "the church can exist without the hierarchy, and it is possible for the entire hierarchy to cease to exist for a given time." then the statement would be in my view be deemed heretical. If you think I am wrong on this, provide any approved sources who hold to your idea.

There are not, as far as I know, teachings of the Magisterium of the Church that propose the doctrine you hold as true. So the issue is open.
Secondly, note that, from the point of view of the power of Order, there is again a Catholic hierarchy on the earth. It is from the point of view of the power of jurisdiction that it lacks a bishop who exercise this power at this moment on the earth. But this does not mean that it is impossible that the apostolic power of jurisdiction will no longer be exercised on the earth. Indeed, until it is possible the election of a Pope, also the exercise of that power will be possible in the future.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
I'd like Gabriele to tell us which Church the members of the hierarchy belonged to in, say, 1962, 1966, 1971, and 1980. Was every see possessed materially or de facto by an official of "the Conciliar church" in 1962? Any of the other dates? If so, on what basis is this assertion made?

From when the Apostolic See is vacant (at least, with certitude, from the moment in which Paul VI has approved Vatican II, 7 December 1965), every bishop that was in communion with a materialiter pope has been a materialiter bishop.
While the power of order is a sacramental power (so once acquired it remains in the man without possibility of lose it), the power of jurisdiction is not a sacramental power. By consequence, it has with the invested subject a purely juridical relation.
We know that all the juridical organization of the Church is based on the Authority of the Pope. In this moment, there is not a Pope – as in each period of sede vacante. But, after Vatican II, with their public communion with a non-Pope, all the bishops have submitted themselves (at least externally and publicly), so as their power of jurisdiction, to a false papal authority. So I ask, how can they at this moment exercise an apostolic power of jurisdiction?
The Faith first of all. The unity is based on the Faith. Well, as privates man these “bishops” may have conserved the catholic faith I do not judge their conscience), but as bishops, as pastors they do not profess integrally the catholic faith.


Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
The English Schism is an excellent study for the principles which apply, and I agree with you that there are lengthy periods in the development of the entity which became the Anglican Church during which it is difficult to say what entity is what, or at least, who belonged to which entity.


In the event, every bishop out of hundreds or however many except for one signed allegiance to the sovereign as primate, broke with Rome and stood by while John Fisher and Thomas More were beheaded. They remained devout to the primate while the state slaughtered intransigent Catholics and hanged for centuries whatsoever priest dared to set foot in England.

I will grant you that a single bishop probably counts as a "hierarchy" but what would you have said to the Catholics if you had known what was about to happen? OK it may be bloodless today but Newpope and his Newbishops have effectively excommunicated any Catholic who refuses to submit to the new teaching about the Jews or any Catholic who questions their historical tales -- which is why the SSPX has not joined up with Newchurch due to the Williamson affair. Is that act not more grevious than physical violence? Is the soul not more precious than the body? We have already been betrayed with the ultimate sanction and you want to talk about Newchurch as a "hierarchy"? Thats all you ever seem to do. You dont seem to have noticed what has happened!!


Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Yes, as I have already demonstrated, Conciliar “popes” are not true Popes. They do not make the good of the Church, this is an evident fact, because they teach the contrary of what the Popes have always taught even in matter of faith (see, for example the new doctrine of religious liberty).
Instead, I have not said that “nobody can know a heretic for sure without the intervention of the Church”. Indeed I believe that until the Church does not intervene with a declaration we can not depose Conciliar “popes” or “bishops” saying that the See are totally vacant, because until this intervention it remains a link (evern if very very weak) between these men and the Church.


Understood, but it's all ipse dixit. No authorities are quoted, or can be quoted, for these ideas. Do you really expect to convince anybody in this way?

Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, I think we disagree in philosophy of knowledge too. Indeed, it seems that you do not want to recognize that man can achieve a truth with his Reason.
On the contrary, God has endowed man of the reason with which he can achieve some truth (not the truths that are only truth of faith). I give you the example of the truth (that is also a truth of reason) of the existence of God.
...

Human reason can not know all things, but there are some things that she can know with certitude. And things that the reason knows with certitude are incontrovertible things.


We do not have the same kind of certitude about everything. Also, we do not have the same kind of evidence for everything. I am not arguing that we can know nothing with certiitude without the judgement of the Church; on the contrary, I have been perfectly clear that many things can be known with certitude without such a judgement. This is all beside the point.

What I said was:

John Lane wrote:
In relation to persons, I may be able to achieve certitude that an individual is a heretic - that is, he knows what is Catholic belief, and yet he chooses his own view anyway. Such a judgement would suffice for my own safety - I can fly from the heretic. But such a judgement has no public status, it does not oblige anybody else.

However, in relation to persons, it is a much more difficult thing to achieve certitude than it is with respect to doctrinal contradiction, for obvious reasons. Further, when we begin judging the relations between persons, severe limitations appear. Many episodes of Church history illustrate these limitations. The Great Western Schism is rich with examples. Was it right to assert that St. Vincent Ferrer was "objectively" schismatic? If not, why not? Surely because the "object" was not schism at all, it was a mistake, a mistake of fact.


Were all of the bishops obliged to judge that Paul VI was a heretic? YOU won't even make that judgement about Paul VI yourself. So I suppose your answer is "no."

Were all of the bishops obliged to judge that Paul VI was not pope? And if they didn't, what were the consequences?

The first of those questions is too large for this post. I'll open a new thread for discussing it. The second is what you are focussing on here. You assert, without any real proof, that any bishop that recognises a non-pope as pope loses jurisdiction.

This is nonsense, Gabriele, and the history of the Church provides plenty of data which enables us to know that with certitude. If bishops lost their jurisdiction by a mistake of fact about the identity of the Roman Pontiff, many historical periods would furnish examples for you, the authorities would discuss the matter, and you would be able to cite them here to prove your claim.


Gabriele wrote:
We can take the concrete example of the new doctrine of religious liberty of Vatican II (Lefebvre too was contrary to this doctrine). Well, do you think that a doctrine connected with the Revelation and approved by a Pope “in the Holy Spirit” is not infallible?


My own view is that the act of promulgating Dignitatis Humanae ought to have attracted the protection of infallibility. However, I also think that the case is not classical, for several reasons, and therefore it presents a difficult case about which to form a judgement. Do you agree that if that nonsense about the "pastoral" nature of Vatican II had not been stated repeatedly by John XXIII and Paul VI, it would have been a more straightforward case to judge? Do you agree that if Vatican II had promulgated canons with attached anathemas, the case would have been clearer?

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
There are many reasons why Ratzinger may refuse to grant Bishop Fellay an office in the Church. Has he mentioned heresy as the reason? No.

Please, John, everyone knows that there are not an accord between SSPX and Ratzinger because Ratzinger want that the SSPX accepts Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, the subsistit in, the new doctrine on Judaism, etc) and the SSPX does not want. Ratzinger considers Vatican II as binding in the matters that I have quoted and that Lefebvre and the new SSPX do not want to accept. It seems to me that you don’t want to admit the evidence.


Not at all, but I want to ensure that the evidence is actually evidence for the claim being made, and that the reasoning from the evidence is tight.

I repeat,

John Lane wrote:
But the sedeplenist will reply, does Benedict teach with authority at all? Does he bind the faithful to accept under pain of damnation any particular proposition? If so, which proposition?

This is not a crazy point, either. The very heart of the Vatican II revolution was precisely the refusal by the Nopes to impose the faith as a law, to which are attached sanctions. This refusal was the principal cause of the collapse of faith at Vatican II and afterwards. It is the cause to which is adequately proportioned the effect we witnessed. It is also why it was so hard for men who rejected the heresies to be sure that they were really Paul VI's heresies, and to what degree papal authority was even involved. It was a masterful deception.


Go back and find a doctrine promulgated as a law by one of the Conciliar popes, to which is attached some kind of sanction, even an indeterminate one. Their attempts to obtain adherence to "Vatican II" as a whole since it closed, don't fit the bill. Why? Because it is not in the nature of the teaching office of the Catholic Church to demand vague things. The Church specifies what she demands that we believe, she imposes those specific things upon the faithful as laws, and she punishes those who refuse assent. You say Benedict is demanding that Bishop Fellay accept religious liberty. I am pointing out that you cannot quote him demanding that specifically. This is a question of fact.

I would say that this behaviour is actually a further proof that Paul VI (and Benedict) was not pope - he didn't behave as a pope. But it is also a factor making the situation more obscure in the line of argument you are using. You argue that given certain conditions, popes are infallible. I am pointing out that the existence of those conditions is what is obscure. The case is not classical.

Gabriele wrote:
« Comment aujourd’hui quelqu’un pourrait-il se comparer à saint Athanase [allusion à Mgr Lefebvre] tout en osant combattre un concile comme le deuxième concile du Vatican, qui ne fait pas moins autorité, qui est même sous certains aspects plus important encore que celui de Nicée? » (Montini: Lettre à Mgr Lefebvre, 29 juin 1975).

« Pour sa part, le Siège apostolique ne poursuivait qu’un seul but dans ces conversations avec vous [Mgr Lefebvre]: favoriser et sauvegarder cette unité dans l’obéissance à la Révélation divine, traduite et interprétée par le magistère de l’Église, notamment dans les vingt et un conciles œcuméniques, de Nicée à Vatican II » (lettre de Wojtyla à Mgr Lefebvre, 9 juin 1988).


I rest my case. Both of these quotes illustrate perfectly my point. These are nothing like the doctrinal instructions of a Roman Pontiff. They are a form of verbal bullying, without specific demands.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Bishop Williamson is an orthodox and courageous Catholic. Even if there has to be a "hierarchy", BW would qualify eminently. We dont need Newchurch bishops. If God supplies jurisdiction in extraordiary times then it makes sense that he would give jurisdiction to BW. It is ridiculous to think that he would give it to an heretic and an antipope instead. You may as well say that he gave it to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Newchurch is not the catholic church. Any simple faithful who remain catholic do so without making Newchurch the catholic church.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
One can sin not only against faith but against reason. It is easily demonstrated that Ratzinger is not the pope. He is a heretic, he has taught heresy and he has imposed heresy -- which a pope cannot do. It is wrong to say that no one is obliged to accept that. Anyone who sees it is obliged to accept that he is not the pope. And in such a grave matter the clergy like SSPX are obliged to look gravely into the matter. It is not right to say that they are not obliged to accept it. They are obliged to seek the truth and to accept it. But all I hear from certain quarters is that they are not obliged to accept it. That is wrong.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:50 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The English Schism is an excellent study for the principles which apply, and I agree with you that there are lengthy periods in the development of the entity which became the Anglican Church during which it is difficult to say what entity is what, or at least, who belonged to which entity.


In the event, every bishop out of hundreds or however many except for one signed allegiance to the sovereign as primate, broke with Rome and stood by while John Fisher and Thomas More were beheaded. They remained devout to the primate while the state slaughtered intransigent Catholics and hanged for centuries whatsoever priest dared to set foot in England.


Actually, that's not what happened. Almost all of the bishops who took the oath repented under Mary, and many of them were martyred for the faith by Elizabeth.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
I will grant you that a single bishop probably counts as a "hierarchy" but what would you have said to the Catholics if you had known what was about to happen?


This not primarily to do with how we must behave. If I'd lived in Genoa I'd still have been obliged to avoid the New Mass, despite Cardinal Siri's position as Archbishop. We are not discussing what people needed to do, we are discussing how to explain, how to understand, the crisis.

The only directly practical aspect of this, as far as I can see, is that it bears on our relations with other traditional Catholics. Is it right to abuse non-sedes for thinking that Benedict is pope? Is it so obvious that he isn't pope that anybody who fails to see it is evidently a sinner, an idiot, a plant, or whatever?

But that isn't the main point. The point is to understand the crisis properly, if possible, and then see what implications that has. If our theory were to cease being repugnant to non-sedes, that might open their minds to the possibility that they are wrong. This has the potential to render them much safer than they are now. They wouldn't negotiate with the Modernists for recognition if they realised that the Modernists have no offices in the Church.

There are millions of words on this Web site. Most of them have to do with proving that the See of Rome is vacant, and that Vatican II is a false council, and that most objections to "sedevacantism" are vacuous. This present discussion shares the same motivation as all the rest of that material. Commenting that writing about this subject "is all I seem to do" is absurd.

I realise that for some, political questions are more interesting and exciting than doctrinal points. I realise that for some, secular history has a value that mere sacred truths can't share. I realise that some people lionise certain individuals (even individuals who will never be sedevacantists and have made that abundantly clear, repeatedly) and therefore think that sedevacantist Web sites should be more interested in the troubles those non-sede persons have with non-Catholics such as the Jews. But frankly, nearly every other traditional Catholic forum on the Internet is presently devoted to that subject and you don't need this one to push that agenda. I think it's boring and peripheral, and a gigantic distraction from the real issues.

People who want to talk about certain secular subjects can do so elsewhere. No problem. Actually, they can go pretty much everywhere right now, and find a warm welcome for their obsession. So I trust that you understand what I am saying - this forum is not a platform for the pushing of political agendas. Take them elsewhere.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Dear John, I think we disagree in philosophy of knowledge too. Indeed, it seems that you do not want to recognize that man can achieve a truth with his Reason.
On the contrary, God has endowed man of the reason with which he can achieve some truth (not the truths that are only truth of faith). I give you the example of the truth (that is also a truth of reason) of the existence of God. Well, in ancient, before the infallible judgment of the Catholic Church, it was possible to achieve the certitude of the existence of God with the only reason. This certitude (the same word says it) was valid not only “for me” or “for you” or “for the man that achieved her”. It was valid for all. It was a truth of reason. In other terms, the existence of God was an incontrovertible fact.


Gabriele,

I just had a further thought about this that might give you some further insight.

What does "divine and catholic faith" refer to?

It refers to divine revelation (i.e. that the doctrine has been revealed) and to the proposal by the Church of this doctrine as divinely revealed. If one realises that a doctrine is divinely revealed (e.g. one reads it in Holy Scripture) yet the Church has not proposed it clearly as of faith, then one is obliged to believe this doctrine with divine faith - but not with divine-catholic faith. Divine and catholic faith is the assent we give to dogmas.

So, if you realised that this truth has been divinely revealed, you would be obliged to assent to it, and you would sin mortally if you didn't. But, you would not leave the Church even if you publicly rejected the same doctrine. Further, you could not criticise as bad Catholics those others who rejected it, precisely because you cannot be sure they realise that this doctrine is divinely revealed.

After the Church proposes this doctrine to the faithful as divinely revealed, all are obliged to accept it under pain of mortal sin and loss of the vrtue of faith, and loss of membership in the Church (if they manifest their doubt or denial). Further, all are presumed to know this dogma, and therefore if anybody dissents from it we may and must judge that they are faithless, and if their doubt or denial is public, that they are non-Catholics.

So I hope you can see that there is a very great chasm between certitude in itself, and the obligations entailed by certitude arising from different causes. Our difference on this point is not to do with criteriology (although I do think we differ on criteriology), but rather it is to do with law.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:01 am
Profile E-mail

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

I will keep to the numbering of the points to make this easier:

Quote:
1. You said, "The union with Peter is not sufficient. It is necessary the union with the Pope." What pope are you referring to? The last I checked we are in agreement that there is not now and has not been a pope for 50 years or so. In the state of sedevacante, one must remain united with the popes of the past, but you cannot remain united to something which does not exist. I believe those bishops, priests and laity who remain Catholic are united to the popes of the past, and only say they remain in union to the post-conciliar popes, either because they do not understand the issues involved or if they do understand think there is a way to remain united to the claimants without compromising their faith, as we discussed above.


Quote:
Dear Mike,
now there is not a Pope, of course. But how can a man to be united (externally) to the Popes of the past if he is (externally) united to a false Pope?
Internally, it is possible (because he may be unaware of what he does), but externally it is not possible. He professes a doctrine incompatible with the doctrine always taught by the Popes of the past.

[/quote]
Gabriele, do you not see that your use of Van Noort does not apply here. Van Noort states that the bishops must reference the pope. There is no pope, so your use of Van Noort does not apply. We now have a different issue that you are making a separate argument about. Your argument is that a bishop loses his jurisdiction during a state of sedevacante if an imposter appears to be pope and the bishop (erroneously) believes he is pope. You will need to defend this thesis, and I look forward to reading anything from the theologians on the subject.

Mike wrote:
2. You said "To be externally (publicly) in communion with Vatican II church means to approve externally (publicly) heretical or erroneous ideas. " This is an assumption on your part. You are assuming that a Catholic who has not lost his faith, automatically approves heretical and erroneous ideas by being in "communion with the Vatican II church." Your theory falls because in reality there are tens of thousand of Catholics around the world who explicitly do not approve of the Vatican II errors, and remain in communion with what they think is the Catholic Church. As we have discussed above, there are reasons why some Catholics think they can adhere to the post conciliar claimants, and remain Catholic. They are then by definition not schismatics, and they are not heretics, so that leaves us with one option, they are Catholics.


Quote:
They may remain Catholics, but they have not reasons for to remain in communion with “popes” that teach errors. Give me one reason.

The reasons could be: the failure to see the conflict between the teachings of the imposters and the teachings of the church. This could derive from trying to construe orthodox interpretations to the frequently vague documents. Secondly, it may be possible that they have seen the conflict, and have privately retreated from the "conciliar church," but due to some reason have chosen to keep the matter private. Ultimately, we do not know unless we actually speak with them, and as of this moment, I do not know anyone that has taken the trouble to travel and visit these bishops.


Mike wrote:
3. You said, "To believe that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council is not bounding it is heretical." True. But I thought we are in agreement that Vatican II was not an ecumenical council of the Church. Because some Catholics are duped into thinking it is one, and then refusing to believe its errors, means that they lack sound logic, not the Catholic Faith.


Quote:
Yes, of course Mike!!! I am very happy that you have said this. We are agree!
I see that also you hold that “they lack sound logic”. It is what I try to explain to John. He thinks that Lefebvre had the better theology (theo-logic) in front of the crisis.
I admire Lefebvre as man and I think that he conserved Catholic Faith in his heart (not externally!), that he wanted make only the good for the Church, but his theology and his action as bishop was very very wrong.


While John can speak of his own mind, I have known John for a long time, and I do not think that he thinks that Lefebvre had the "better theology." He is defending Archbishop Lefebvre against unjust accusations that he failed in his Catholic Faith and his duty to the Church. I think it would have been better if the Archbishop condemned the imposters, called forth an imperfect council, and declared the see vacant, then proceeded to elect a lawful pope. This would have been legal and binding, and in my view, Catholics would have followed. But, it did not happen that way, but that does not in and of itself mean that the Archbishop abandoned his faith externally, as you say. He never taught heresy, rather he defended the Faith.

Regarding his theology, let me know what exact points you think he was wrong on, and we can have a look. Perhaps, though, no this point we should open a new thread for that discussion.

Mike wrote:
4. You said, "To judge heretic a man is very difficult in our case and this is one of the reasons for which I hold as wrong total sedevacantism. But to observe that externally the conciliar “popes” do not teach catholic doctrine or the conciliar “bishops” who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope they actually exercise it in communion with a non-Pope (and by consequence without reference to the Pope), well, all this is clear and under our eyes. These are incontrovertible facts."

I really think you are stretching Van Noort to fit your theory. I would like to see what the theologians say about the scenerio of bishops lawfully appointed by a true pope, who during a state of sedevacante, wish to remain united to Peter, through the action of remaining united to an imposter they think is Peter.


Quote:
Ok, Mike. I accept your opinion. I am happy to note that also for you – as for me – we have in front of our eyes a scenario never seen before. Indeed, History repeats itself, but never in the same identical way.
I’d like to study in deep the issues related to the power of jurisdiction.


I am happy that we finally agree on something :)

Quote:
Mike wrote:
5. You said, "Then, how can you say that they exercise an apostolic power?
However, Mike, it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church. If not, please, give me the name of one bishop which received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that is not in communion with conciliar church. The presence of this communion is sufficient to deprive this bishop of his apostolic power, because it lacks the reference to a successor of Peter. It is not necessary to know if this man is a heretic."

It is interesting that you can have certainty about something you know nothing about.


I only say that I do not know only one bishop who received the power of jurisdiction from a true Pope that now is not in communion with Benedict XVI. If you know, please give me the name and I will take conscience that he exists. But until nobody tell me something about this presumptive bishop I have the right, I think, to believe that he does not exists. We are not in a desert Island.
You seem, on the contrary, to exclude that it is possible that such a bishop might not exist (admitting that you have “insufficient data”):
“For example, I do not know about some of the lives, teachings and acts of the Pius XII bishops living in South America, Africa or Asia. I do not know them, I have not read anything about them, and I cannot to any serious degree even read their language in many cases. The only thing I do know about them is that they supposedly adhere to Benedict XVI. To be honest, I do not even know that. They may not adhere to him but may keep it private. I do not know if they have kept the Faith, or have abandoned it. I have not heard anything about their words, writings or actions. In short, I have insufficient data to make any judgment whatsoever about them” (Mike).


Mike wrote:
We have not even identified who these bishops are yet, and you say, "it is certain that they are in communion with the conciliar church." You are treating the conciliar church as though it is a condemned sect. It has not been condemned by the Church, and therefore, there are Catholics who erroneously think this is the Catholic Church. I think you would agree that the organization has been trying to mimic the Church, they have their own "pope" and bishops, and currently have control over most of the buildings owned by the Church, including the Vatican itself. .

I use the expression “conciliar church” to be brief and because – if I am not wrong – the same conciliar "popes" use this expression sometime. But I want to specify that for me the “conciliar church” is not a condemned sect, just because the Church is not intervened on this matter. More, I think that conciliar "popes" and "bishops" are materially "popes" and materially "bishops".
On the contrary, there are many total sedevacantists who treat the “conciliar church” as a condemned sect. This happens in many fora, especially in the Francophone world. This is incorrect and it often depends from the mentality of total sedevacantists which always do everything regardless from the judgment of the Church.

Mike wrote:
Again, you keep saying that the bishops lose their jurisdiction because they lack reference to the successor of Peter, and again I say that there is currently not a successor to Peter, therefore the point is moot.

See the first point.


Gabriele, I do not think you are wrong to use the expression, "conciliar church." You may be right about some sedevacantists treating the conciliar church as a condemned sect, but due to the lack of official leadership, differences in conclusions about this crisis is going to the the norm, rather than the exception. I also think that many problems such as this derive from a lack of precision in these matters.


Mike wrote:
6. You said, "Is the doctrine for which “There must at all times of the world be lawful pastors who are actually living and breathing men, not ideas of men that may exist in the future”, is this doctrine present in the Magisterium? Or is this doctrine a theological opinion? If it is present in the Magisterium, please, give me the reference."

I posted this on the Bellarmine Forums some time ago. http://www.sedevacantist.org/forums/vie ... 11&p=10121 This teaching is part of the doctrine of Apostolicity of the Church. From the text:

Quote:
Q. How does it appear that the Church of Christ is Apostolical?
A. By the word Apostolical is meant, that the Church of Christ is ruled by the apostles, and the doctrine of faith was taught by them as they received it from Christ, the powers of priesthood were exercised by them, and that she must continue to the end of the world in the profession of the same faith and doctrine, and in a continual uninterrupted succession of priesthood, so that the apostolic doctrine, priesthood, and mission remain with her forever. That the Church shall always preserve the apostolical doctrine, we have seen above, when explaining the rule of faith; and that she shall never want a succession of true pastors, inheriting the same priestly powers and mission which she received at first from the apostles, is manifest from these considerations: First, Because true pastors, properly empowered, and lawfully sent, are a necessary part of the Church, and instituted by Jesus Christ, “for the perfecting the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv.; consequently, such pastors will never be wanting in her, according to that of the prophet: “Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all the day and al the night they shall never hold their peace,” Is. 1xii. 6.
boldfacing added

Quote:
I do not see a teaching of the Magisterium in that thread, Mike. Perhaps, it escapes to me. Please quote it directly.


It does not escape you, this statement is not from a pope, as the reference states. However, it is an accurate explanation of the teaching of the Church. As you must be aware, the teaching of the Church comes from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The text I provided relies on Sacred Scripture which can be directly applied to the doctrinal teaching he is explaining. Secondly, the teaching in this book coincides with all other writings on apostolicity (Here are some viewtopic.php?f=11&t=984 ). Third, you have not provided any approved source which states anything different from this teaching. Fourth, the book was approved by ecclesiastical authority and praised by Rome. (Francis Cardinal Satolli, Prefect of the Congregation of Studies, in a letter dated 6 June 1907 stated about the book, "I believe there does not exist a work equal to it in merit and usefulness." The book was also highly praised by numerous bishops.

Lastly, if this doctrine were not true, then the Church has ended and we have something new that is no longer identical to the Church established by our Lord, as we would no longer have the successors to the Apostles. Our Lord sent the Apostles to govern his Church and by that He authorized them to appoint successors who would continue to the Church. The successors of the Apostles cannot cease to exist, because if they do, then the Church as it was established by Our Lord has also ceased to exist. This is heretical.

Quote:
Mike wrote:
7. You said, "2. I want to give for true this doctrine, for a moment. Well, please give me the name of one bishop who exercises the power of jurisdiction with reference to a successor of Peter nowadays. Otherwise we really speak of ideas."

It is not necessary for me to be able to name the bishop or bishops, but it is necessary to believe that they are alive and in the world today. If you were living in a desert island, with no means of communication, would you still have to believe the Church is still in the world outside your island even though you cannot see it? It is not necessary for me to see, except with eyes of Faith. In the excerpt I gave you above, Fr. McGovern witnessed to the teaching of the Church, and my only job is to believe it, even if everything around me is trying to tell me otherwise. That is our challenge in our times. We must keep the Faith despite the appearances.

You have not again quoted a teaching of the Catholic Magisterium that proposes the doctrine on Apostolicity that you hold as true.
And we are not in a desert island.


Mike wrote:
It seems, according to your theory, that the hierarchy has failed, and that there is no longer in the world today even a single member of the hierarchy. I believe that if you made the statement in times of a pope, that "the church can exist without the hierarchy, and it is possible for the entire hierarchy to cease to exist for a given time." then the statement would be in my view be deemed heretical. If you think I am wrong on this, provide any approved sources who hold to your idea.

Quote:
There are not, as far as I know, teachings of the Magisterium of the Church that propose the doctrine you hold as true. So the issue is open.
Secondly, note that, from the point of view of the power of Order, there is again a Catholic hierarchy on the earth. It is from the point of view of the power of jurisdiction that it lacks a bishop who exercise this power at this moment on the earth. But this does not mean that it is impossible that the apostolic power of jurisdiction will no longer be exercised on the earth. Indeed, until it is possible the election of a Pope, also the exercise of that power will be possible in the future.


We may not be marooned on a desert island, but we may as well be. We are marooned from any ready access to the lawful pastors of the Church. It is only our Catholic Faith which assures us that they exist, as they must.

As I answered in #6, I am convinced that this issue of the the end of the apostolic succession is not an open question in theology. Ask yourself this question, if you were living in any other age of the Church other than ours, would you ever come up with this idea? You are trying to establish a theory, and this doctrine is in the way, so rather than adjust the theory, you are adjusting the doctrine to an open question. Do you not see this? Can you name and quote any theologian, or any Catholic for that matter from the time of Our Lord until 1962 that ever said "the hierarchy can cease to exist from the earth, and apostolic succession can end even for a time."

To your second point, the orders are not the same as the habitual jurisdiction which comes from being a successor to the Apostles. As you are aware, the episcopal consecration of the traditional bishops does not make the bishop a successor of the apostles. They possess the orders, and by that most Catholics operate under the idea that they may use their power as a bishop to ordain, confirm, etc., but they are not and cannot be by their consecration alone a successor of the Apostles, a member of the hierarchy.

It may be possible during our crisis for new members of the hierarchy (successors of the Apostles) to be elected in a diocese, but this has never been done, and would be a topic for another thread.

I hope that I have answered well the questions you posed. God bless you and be assured of my prayers.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike, is this a double post? I fixed the formatting of the first one, but I see that the second one seems to have the same content. Is that right?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:53 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

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

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

Quote:
First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

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

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

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

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


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

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Mike, is this a double post? I fixed the formatting of the first one, but I see that the second one seems to have the same content. Is that right?


John, when I posted it last night I noticed that due to the quoting the post was very confusing, so I reworked and edited the post to make it more clear, and I think we may have done it at around the same time, leading to two of the same or close to the same posts. :)

I fixed it, and deleted the double.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:



John,
ist it possible that this link is broken? I cannot open it.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Fixed. Thanks! viewtopic.php?p=9877#p9877

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Quote:
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. (Vatican I)


That doesnt say that there will always be a hierarchy. Nothing is to taken as defined by a council unless it is explicit and unambiguous.

All that says is that it is the will of God that there should be faithful bishops unto the end. It doesnt even guarantee that there will always be faithful bishops. It is his "will" that all should be saved but that doesnt mean that all will be saved.

It doesnt say anything about a hierarchy with jurisdiction. Even if we accept the devout opinion that there will always be jurisdiction supplied to a faithful bishop then that in no way implies any Newchurch bishop. Bishop Williamson would satisfy that devout opinion.

There is nothing in this that proves that a single Newchurch bishop remains a Catholic or has any jurisdiction. In fact we know that they are not Catholics, they are Newchurch heretics without any jurisdiction.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:07 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
That doesnt say...
All that says is...
It doesnt say anything about...
There is nothing in this that proves...


You're not the interpreter, the theologians are. Click on the link to the other thread and read what the theologians had to say.

There will always be a hierarchy, and Our Lord will be with it all days, even to the consummation of the world.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:19 am
Profile E-mail

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

Question : Did the bishops consecrated during the long interregnum have jurisdiction? Were they considered successors to the Apostles? Or did jurisdiction only occur after the pope was finally elected and confirmed them as bishops?

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:53 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
There will always be a hierarchy, and Our Lord will be with it all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Yes. Also, Our Lord will be with us...that is the Church, until the end of the world. To interpret Our Lord's words otherwise is to call Him a liar.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Yes, as I have already demonstrated, Conciliar “popes” are not true Popes. They do not make the good of the Church, this is an evident fact, because they teach the contrary of what the Popes have always taught even in matter of faith (see, for example the new doctrine of religious liberty).
Instead, I have not said that “nobody can know a heretic for sure without the intervention of the Church”. Indeed I believe that until the Church does not intervene with a declaration we can not depose Conciliar “popes” or “bishops” saying that the See are totally vacant, because until this intervention it remains a link (evern if very very weak) between these men and the Church.


Understood, but it's all ipse dixit. No authorities are quoted, or can be quoted, for these ideas. Do you really expect to convince anybody in this way?


About the fact that conciliar “popes” are not true Popes, I have already given the demonstration.
About the necessity of a declaration of the Church to say that the Apostolic See or an Episcopal See is vacant, please, read here before to say that my words are only ipse dixit: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1263 .

John Lane wrote:
We do not have the same kind of certitude about everything. Also, we do not have the same kind of evidence for everything. I am not arguing that we can know nothing with certiitude without the judgement of the Church; on the contrary, I have been perfectly clear that many things can be known with certitude without such a judgement. This is all beside the point.

What I said was:

John Lane wrote:
In relation to persons, I may be able to achieve certitude that an individual is a heretic - that is, he knows what is Catholic belief, and yet he chooses his own view anyway. Such a judgement would suffice for my own safety - I can fly from the heretic. But such a judgement has no public status, it does not oblige anybody else.

However, in relation to persons, it is a much more difficult thing to achieve certitude than it is with respect to doctrinal contradiction, for obvious reasons. Further, when we begin judging the relations between persons, severe limitations appear. Many episodes of Church history illustrate these limitations. The Great Western Schism is rich with examples. Was it right to assert that St. Vincent Ferrer was "objectively" schismatic? If not, why not? Surely because the "object" was not schism at all, it was a mistake, a mistake of fact.


Were all of the bishops obliged to judge that Paul VI was a heretic? YOU won't even make that judgement about Paul VI yourself. So I suppose your answer is "no."

Were all of the bishops obliged to judge that Paul VI was not pope? And if they didn't, what were the consequences?


They were obliged to judge Paul VI as a non-Pope. Otherwise, they would have to believe that a Pope can err when he teaches a doctrine connected to the Revelation to the universal Church. But this belief is not Catholic. Therefore, once aware of the presence of errors in the “Magisterium” of Paul VI, they are obliged to conclude that Paul VI was not Pope.


John Lane wrote:
The first of those questions is too large for this post. I'll open a new thread for discussing it. The second is what you are focussing on here. You assert, without any real proof, that any bishop that recognises a non-pope as pope loses jurisdiction.

This is nonsense, Gabriele, and the history of the Church provides plenty of data which enables us to know that with certitude. If bishops lost their jurisdiction by a mistake of fact about the identity of the Roman Pontiff, many historical periods would furnish examples for you, the authorities would discuss the matter, and you would be able to cite them here to prove your claim.


It is difficult, from the moment that we have a situation never seen before in front of us. Theologians of the past could hardly speak with precision of things that they did not imagine.


John Lane wrote:
My own view is that the act of promulgating Dignitatis Humanae ought to have attracted the protection of infallibility. However, I also think that the case is not classical, for several reasons, and therefore it presents a difficult case about which to form a judgement. Do you agree that if that nonsense about the "pastoral" nature of Vatican II had not been stated repeatedly by John XXIII and Paul VI, it would have been a more straightforward case to judge? Do you agree that if Vatican II had promulgated canons with attached anathemas, the case would have been clearer?


No, John, I do not agree, because conciliar act have all the condition for the infallibility of the doctrine. Secondly, as I have already say, we must to consider things for what they are. And it makes no sense that the Church, or the Pope alone, says that a certain thing is in the Revelation or that she is connected to the Revelation but that it is not necessary to believe this is true.
Thirdly, Pope Leo XIII teaches clearly: As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true” (Satis Cognitum). There is no need of an attached anathemas.

John Lane wrote:
Not at all, but I want to ensure that the evidence is actually evidence for the claim being made, and that the reasoning from the evidence is tight.

I repeat,

John Lane wrote:
But the sedeplenist will reply, does Benedict teach with authority at all? Does he bind the faithful to accept under pain of damnation any particular proposition? If so, which proposition?

This is not a crazy point, either. The very heart of the Vatican II revolution was precisely the refusal by the Nopes to impose the faith as a law, to which are attached sanctions. This refusal was the principal cause of the collapse of faith at Vatican II and afterwards. It is the cause to which is adequately proportioned the effect we witnessed. It is also why it was so hard for men who rejected the heresies to be sure that they were really Paul VI's heresies, and to what degree papal authority was even involved. It was a masterful deception.


Go back and find a doctrine promulgated as a law by one of the Conciliar popes, to which is attached some kind of sanction, even an indeterminate one. Their attempts to obtain adherence to "Vatican II" as a whole since it closed, don't fit the bill. Why? Because it is not in the nature of the teaching office of the Catholic Church to demand vague things. The Church specifies what she demands that we believe, she imposes those specific things upon the faithful as laws, and she punishes those who refuse assent. You say Benedict is demanding that Bishop Fellay accept religious liberty. I am pointing out that you cannot quote him demanding that specifically. This is a question of fact.

I would say that this behaviour is actually a further proof that Paul VI (and Benedict) was not pope - he didn't behave as a pope. But it is also a factor making the situation more obscure in the line of argument you are using. You argue that given certain conditions, popes are infallible. I am pointing out that the existence of those conditions is what is obscure. The case is not classical.


The conditions are clears. Obviously, a man might to pretend not to see them.

The quote of Pope Leo XIII shows that your view on the binding character of a doctrine proposed by the Church is wrong. I repeat it:

As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true” (Satis Cognitum).

When you say: “You say Benedict is demanding that Bishop Fellay accept religious liberty. I am pointing out that you cannot quote him demanding that specifically. This is a question of fact”, you say a thing untrue.

Benedict XVI has spoke of the binding character of Vatican II in reference to the Lefebvrism, for example, here:

“We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them” (LETTER OF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA" SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, 7 July 2007).

Fellay knows very well that for the roman “authorities” the Vatican II is binding, just in the doctrines that SSPX does not want to accept. Recently, the new Prefect of the CDF, Gerhard Müller, has clearly remembered this binding character in an interview to the Süddeutsche Zeitung (source: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homep ... nso-16963/):

«Il Concilio vaticano II è vincolante»
[The Second Vatican Council is binding]

and then:

«Si può discutere della dichiarazione sul rapporto con i media, ma le affermazioni sugli ebrei, sulla libertà di religione, sui diritti umani hanno delle implicazioni dogmatiche. Quelle non si possono rifiutare senza pregiudicare la fede cattolica».
[You can discuss the Declaration on the relationship with the media, but the statements about Jews, freedom of religion, human rights have implications dogmatic. Those you can not deny without prejudice the Catholic faith].

John Lane wrote:
I rest my case. Both of these quotes illustrate perfectly my point. These are nothing like the doctrinal instructions of a Roman Pontiff. They are a form of verbal bullying, without specific demands.


Ok, John. From my part, it seems to me that I have already given sufficient evidence. Only who does not want to see might conclude that the new doctrine on religious freedom has not the conditions to be infallible and binding.

A cordial greeting


Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
Gabriele, do you not see that your use of Van Noort does not apply here. Van Noort states that the bishops must reference the pope. There is no pope, so your use of Van Noort does not apply. We now have a different issue that you are making a separate argument about. Your argument is that a bishop loses his jurisdiction during a state of sedevacante if an imposter appears to be pope and the bishop (erroneously) believes he is pope. You will need to defend this thesis, and I look forward to reading anything from the theologians on the subject.

To be submitted to the false authority of a non Pope (also for an error of fact), and to approve externally his false teachings, has this circumstance not any influence on the power of jurisdiction of this bishop?
Secondly, if a bishop (also for an error of fact) decides to submit himself to the conciliar church he is submitted to the legal system of the conciliar church. Well, it seems to me that, if not exceptionally, in the legal system of the conciliar church a bishop who reaches the age of 75 years is replaced by a younger bishop in the governance of the Diocese. Consequently, his power of jurisdiction is removed and he is conscious that he does not have more this power.
Mike wrote:
The reasons could be: the failure to see the conflict between the teachings of the imposters and the teachings of the church. This could derive from trying to construe orthodox interpretations to the frequently vague documents.

But, Mike, “the failure to see the conflict…” is not a reason, it is a … failure! This failure is a proof that their theological position is wrong. And it is at most something that can mitigate or exclude their liability but not a reason on which they can built their position.
Mike wrote:
Secondly, it may be possible that they have seen the conflict, and have privately retreated from the "conciliar church," but due to some reason have chosen to keep the matter private.

Here too you do not indicate any reason. “Due to some reason”, what reason?
Mike wrote:
Ultimately, we do not know unless we actually speak with them, and as of this moment, I do not know anyone that has taken the trouble to travel and visit these bishops.

And soon these bishops will disappear.
Mike wrote:
While John can speak of his own mind, I have known John for a long time, and I do not think that he thinks that Lefebvre had the "better theology." He is defending Archbishop Lefebvre against unjust accusations that he failed in his Catholic Faith and his duty to the Church.

John says:
“While I won't say I "follow" any of these men [Fr. Guérard, Fr. Barbara, Bp. Lefebvre], only because it isn't factual, I think that Archbishop Lefebvre was the better theologian. The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative”.

Mike wrote:
I think it would have been better if the Archbishop condemned the imposters, called forth an imperfect council, and declared the see vacant, then proceeded to elect a lawful pope. This would have been legal and binding, and in my view, Catholics would have followed.

Me too, dear Mike. I do not share but I can understand the fear of the Archbishop to take this step. I probably would have done much worse.
Mike wrote:
But, it did not happen that way, but that does not in and of itself mean that the Archbishop abandoned his faith externally, as you say. He never taught heresy, rather he defended the Faith.

He externally abandoned Catholic Faith when he said that the Pope is modernist, the Pope teaches errors. And he has assumed a schismatic and scandalous behaviour for to have systematically disobeyed the Pope.
Mike wrote:
Regarding his theology, let me know what exact points you think he was wrong on, and we can have a look. Perhaps, though, no this point we should open a new thread for that discussion.

We can of course open a new thread. I observe in Lefebvre’s theology a voluntarist and minimalist approach about the doctrine of the papal infallibility. For the rest, the SSPX (and perhaps Lefebvre too) has a protestant manner to consider the relation between Tradition and Magisterium.
Mike wrote:
I am happy that we finally agree on something :)

I am too very happy. Really :)
Mike wrote:
Gabriele, I do not think you are wrong to use the expression, "conciliar church." You may be right about some sedevacantists treating the conciliar church as a condemned sect, but due to the lack of official leadership, differences in conclusions about this crisis is going to the the norm, rather than the exception. I also think that many problems such as this derive from a lack of precision in these matters.

I agree.
Mike wrote:
It does not escape you, this statement is not from a pope, as the reference states. However, it is an accurate explanation of the teaching of the Church. As you must be aware, the teaching of the Church comes from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The text I provided relies on Sacred Scripture which can be directly applied to the doctrinal teaching he is explaining.

Of course, but it remains an interpretation of a theologian.
Mike wrote:
Secondly, the teaching in this book coincides with all other writings on apostolicity (Here are some http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... f=11&t=984 ).

Good, but not again binding.
Mike wrote:
Third, you have not provided any approved source which states anything different from this teaching.

I am studying the problem.
Mike wrote:
Fourth, the book was approved by ecclesiastical authority and praised by Rome. (Francis Cardinal Satolli, Prefect of the Congregation of Studies, in a letter dated 6 June 1907 stated about the book, "I believe there does not exist a work equal to it in merit and usefulness." The book was also highly praised by numerous bishops.

Very good, but not again binding.
Mike wrote:
Lastly, if this doctrine were not true, then the Church has ended and we have something new that is no longer identical to the Church established by our Lord, as we would no longer have the successors to the Apostles. Our Lord sent the Apostles to govern his Church and by that He authorized them to appoint successors who would continue to the Church. The successors of the Apostles cannot cease to exist, because if they do, then the Church as it was established by Our Lord has also ceased to exist. This is heretical.

The Church has ended if there is not the possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction. In this case, the apostolic succession is terminated. But until we can have again a true Pope, then we can have again bishops with the power of jurisdiction. Thus until we can have again a true Pope, the apostolic succession is saved.
Mike wrote:
We may not be marooned on a desert island, but we may as well be. We are marooned from any ready access to the lawful pastors of the Church. It is only our Catholic Faith which assures us that they exist, as they must.

As I answered in #6, I am convinced that this issue of the the end of the apostolic succession is not an open question in theology. Ask yourself this question, if you were living in any other age of the Church other than ours, would you ever come up with this idea? You are trying to establish a theory, and this doctrine is in the way, so rather than adjust the theory, you are adjusting the doctrine to an open question. Do you not see this? Can you name and quote any theologian, or any Catholic for that matter from the time of Our Lord until 1962 that ever said "the hierarchy can cease to exist from the earth, and apostolic succession can end even for a time."

The hierarchy is not ended until it is possible to have the same apostolic hierarchy.
Mike wrote:
To your second point, the orders are not the same as the habitual jurisdiction which comes from being a successor to the Apostles. As you are aware, the episcopal consecration of the traditional bishops does not make the bishop a successor of the apostles. They possess the orders, and by that most Catholics operate under the idea that they may use their power as a bishop to ordain, confirm, etc., but they are not and cannot be by their consecration alone a successor of the Apostles, a member of the hierarchy.

From the point of view of the power of Order, yes. There is something that links these men with the Apostles. If they have the power to consecrate to absolve (even if not habitually), or to ordain, etc, this is because this power became to them from the Apostles. Differently from oriental schismatic bishops, they are bishop who conserve Catholic Faith.
Mike wrote:
It may be possible during our crisis for new members of the hierarchy (successors of the Apostles) to be elected in a diocese, but this has never been done, and would be a topic for another thread.
I hope that I have answered well the questions you posed. God bless you and be assured of my prayers.

Thank you very much. I remember you in my humble prayers.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Gabriele wrote:
Mike wrote:
Secondly, it may be possible that they have seen the conflict, and have privately retreated from the "conciliar church," but due to some reason have chosen to keep the matter private.

Here too you do not indicate any reason. “Due to some reason”, what reason?

Come, come Gabriele: how could Mike, or anyone else (which, by the way, includes YOU) possibly answer that question? It involves a unique individual's "reasons", and thus there would be many: perhaps thousands of reasonable reasons. Pick one, if you must. But since you are not privy to anyone's thoughts, to anyone's soul, but your own, how can you expect an answer to such a ridiculous question? Surely you are more intelligent than that?

Since your own intelligence is not an issue here, then why would you ask such a literally stupid question? Are you just trying to take up space? Or are you, as so many others who find themselves backed into a corner, trying to obfuscate with non-essentials?

I'm sorry, but I find your arguments tedious, beside the point, much too wordy, and hardly worth reading. The questions at hand are simple, and really don't need extensive "explanations".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:13 pm
Profile E-mail

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

1.
Quote:
Gabriele, do you not see that your use of Van Noort does not apply here. Van Noort states that the bishops must reference the pope. There is no pope, so your use of Van Noort does not apply. We now have a different issue that you are making a separate argument about. Your argument is that a bishop loses his jurisdiction during a state of sedevacante if an imposter appears to be pope and the bishop (erroneously) believes he is pope. You will need to defend this thesis, and I look forward to reading anything from the theologians on the subject.


Quote:
To be submitted to the false authority of a non Pope (also for an error of fact), and to approve externally his false teachings, has this circumstance not any influence on the power of jurisdiction of this bishop?
Secondly, if a bishop (also for an error of fact) decides to submit himself to the conciliar church he is submitted to the legal system of the conciliar church. Well, it seems to me that, if not exceptionally, in the legal system of the conciliar church a bishop who reaches the age of 75 years is replaced by a younger bishop in the governance of the Diocese. Consequently, his power of jurisdiction is removed and he is conscious that he does not have more this power.


Gabriele, Are we still discussing Van Noort, or have we moved on? As I stated before, Van Noort's statement says that bishops must reference the pope, but there is no pope, so as I said, the point is moot. You are making a separate argument, not using Van Noort as an authority. Your argument is "To be submitted to the false authority of a non Pope (also for an error of fact), and to approve externally his false teachings, has this circumstance not any influence on the power of jurisdiction of this bishop?" I have not seen any sources which support this position. Bishops lose their jurisdiction through heresy or schism, (also excommunication and resignation but that is not relevant here), and that has not been proven in any of the cases of the bishops in question.

To your second point, when one renders his resignation, he must render it to one in authority to accept it. If the bishops submit their resignations to imposters, and the imposters accept the resignation, then that would mean that one in authority has not accepted it, and the person retains the post. He may think he has resigned, but he has not. Secondly, Catholics are not part of or bound to a legal framework set up by and approved by men outside the Church.

2.
Mike wrote:
Ultimately, we do not know unless we actually speak with them, and as of this moment, I do not know anyone that has taken the trouble to travel and visit these bishops.


Quote:
And soon these bishops will disappear.

But, they have not disappeared. It is impossible for all of the Successors of the Apostles to disappear from the earth.

3.
Mike wrote:
While John can speak of his own mind, I have known John for a long time, and I do not think that he thinks that Lefebvre had the "better theology." He is defending Archbishop Lefebvre against unjust accusations that he failed in his Catholic Faith and his duty to the Church.

Quote:
John says:
“While I won't say I "follow" any of these men [Fr. Guérard, Fr. Barbara, Bp. Lefebvre], only because it isn't factual, I think that Archbishop Lefebvre was the better theologian. The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative”.


I am not sure about the context of John's statement regarding why he thinks Archbishop Lefebvre is the better theologian. I think it better to refer this question to John, since it is his own thoughts at issue here. He is correct when he states, "The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative” Whatever you may think of Lefebvre, surely you agree with this second part of John's statement.

4.
Quote:
I do not share but I can understand the fear of the Archbishop to take this step. I probably would have done much worse.


I agree. It is easy for us to look at this from our time, and say what the Archbishop should have done. He had an immense responsibility to the Catholics who trusted his leadership. He probably asked himself, "among the entire hierarchy, why is no one else seeing this?" I do not judge his motives, I think his motives were pure and good, but I do wish things worked out differently.

5.
Quote:
5. The Church has ended if there is not the possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction. In this case, the apostolic succession is terminated. But until we can have again a true Pope, then we can have again bishops with the power of jurisdiction. Thus until we can have again a true Pope, the apostolic succession is saved.


You press me for sources, and I have given you one, which I think in this case is sufficient, because it states what all of the others say who have spoken on the subject. I also gave you a link to other approved writings which state the same as the source I posted. Also, John has also given you the text of Vatican I, and the link to Cristian's research on sources from theologians on this. But, despite this, you make this sweeping statement, without any use of sources.

You have shifted the visible and concrete presence of the hierarchy in the world to the end of time, to a "possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction." This means that there can be gaps in which apostolic succession ceases, and then restarts. To follow your logic, apostolicity can cease to be a mark of the Church for a given period of time, and the apostle's successors, completely gone from the earth, may at some future time return.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:28 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
That doesnt say...
All that says is...
It doesnt say anything about...
There is nothing in this that proves...


You're not the interpreter, the theologians are. Click on the link to the other thread and read what the theologians had to say.




The same also applies to you.


I am well aware of the fact that the teachings of the theologians are not mere "opinions". However their authority has also its limits. Here is a quote by Diekamp on the authority of the theologians:


Quote:
Sententia communis ist ein Satz , der an sich zum Gebiet der freien Meinung gehört, dem man aber wegen der allgemeinen Zustimmung der Theologen nur auf die triftigsten Gründe hin widersprechen darf.

(I,p.74)
And:

Quote:
Propositio temeraria ist eine Lehre, die ohne genügende Gründe zu einer sententia communis theologorum oder zu einer allgemeinen , von der Kirche gebilligten religiösen Übung in Widerspruch tritt.

(p.75).


Quote:
You press me for sources, and I have given you one, which I think in this case is sufficient, because it states what all of the others say who have spoken on the subject. I also gave you a link to other approved writings which state the same as the source I posted. Also, John has also given you the text of Vatican I, and the link to Cristian's research on sources from theologians on this. But, despite this, you make this sweeping statement, without any use of sources.

You have shifted the visible and concrete presence of the hierarchy in the world to the end of time, to a "possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction." This means that there can be gaps in which apostolic succession ceases, and then restarts. To follow your logic, apostolicity can cease to be a mark of the Church for a given period of time, and the apostle's successors, completely gone from the earth, may at some future time return.



Mike, you must also understand him. You and John have quoted the theologians that there will be always bishops with ordiniary jurisdiction. Under normal circumstances this would be sufficient. But you two are not able to point to one concrete person.
I think that hard reality as it is is a grave reason to abandon the consensus of the theologians.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:57 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Martin wrote:
I think that hard reality as it is is a grave reason to abandon the consensus of the theologians.


Martin, I can handle this. At least you are seeing the reality of the situation - that is, you see that your position is not that of the theologians. This is where I struggle with Gabriele, who imagines that he is presenting something consistent with the doctrine in the manuals.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Actually I feel rather unsettled about the present situation whether all sees are vacant.
Over recent I thought that more or less that a succession of Catholic bishops who can only exercise supplied jurisdiction is maybe sufficient. At least a bishop like Pivarunas is for the people who attend CMRI masses at the practical level their shepherd and teacher.

However over the course of the last half year I came to the realisation that there is still the possibility that there is a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Germany
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Martin wrote:



I am well aware of the fact that the teachings of the theologians are not mere "opinions". However their authority has also its limits. Here is a quote by Diekamp on the authority of the theologians:


Quote:
Sententia communis ist ein Satz , der an sich zum Gebiet der freien Meinung gehört, dem man aber wegen der allgemeinen Zustimmung der Theologen nur auf die triftigsten Gründe hin widersprechen darf.

(I,p.74)
And:

Quote:
Propositio temeraria ist eine Lehre, die ohne genügende Gründe zu einer sententia communis theologorum oder zu einer allgemeinen , von der Kirche gebilligten religiösen Übung in Widerspruch tritt.

(p.75).

.



I make here a translation of the two quotes out of Diekamp:

Diekamp wrote:
Sententia communis is a proposition that belongs in itself to the area of free opinion which may be contradicted because of the general agreement of the theologians only on the most cogent grounds.
...
Propositio temeraria is a teaching which is at variance with a sententia communis theologorum without sufficient reasons or with a general religious exercise approved by the Church.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:11 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Martin, the first question I am going to ask you (and Gabriele) is: "Do you know, personally, every really Catholic bishop who exists anywhere at all in the world?"

I'll answer my question for you: of course you do not. In fact, I am certain there are valid, Catholic bishops, who have and retain their jurisdiction, still in existence of whom not only you, but not even the Annuario has ever heard of nor mentioned. Do you believe that all those bishops who were consecrated by the bishops that both Pius XI and Pius XII sent behind the Iron Curtain did nothing to preserve and protect the Church there, and that they all died "without issue"? I don't.

Secondly, with Mike, I cannot see how either of you can insist that all Bishops, even valid Catholic ones, lose their jurisdiction at every interregnum, and then regain it when a new Pope is elected. You have never presented any proof from any approved source for such an innovative idea.

Thirdly, I have never believed we have been totally without a Pope for the past 50+ years and counting. Appearances, even over a long period of time, can be, and frequently are, deceiving.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:19 am
Profile E-mail

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

Gabriele, Are we still discussing Van Noort, or have we moved on? As I stated before, Van Noort's statement says that bishops must reference the pope, but there is no pope, so as I said, the point is moot. You are making a separate argument, not using Van Noort as an authority. Your argument is "To be submitted to the false authority of a non Pope (also for an error of fact), and to approve externally his false teachings, has this circumstance not any influence on the power of jurisdiction of this bishop?"


Dear Mike,
Van Noort had not in front of his eyes the crisis that we know. But also in the reality that we examine, which is not equal to the cases that probably were considered by Van Noort, there is not reference to the Pope in the exercise of the power of jurisdiction.
In our case, it lacks the reference to the Pope not so much because there is not Pope, but because these bishops wanted to submit to a non-Pope. Indeed, if they really wanted to submit to a true Pope – now, in a period of vacancy of the See – they remain waiting for this true Pope or they would work for his election without to submit them to a false Pope.

Mike wrote:
I have not seen any sources which support this position. Bishops lose their jurisdiction through heresy or schism, (also excommunication and resignation but that is not relevant here), and that has not been proven in any of the cases of the bishops in question.


But nobody has said that these are the exclusives cases in which a bishop lose his jurisdiction. Now we know a new situation. For this reason the theologians of nowadays can elaborate doctrines appropriates to this situation, if these doctrines are not contraries to the Magisterium of the Church (attention: to the Magisterium and not to the opinions of the theologians of the past).

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


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

Mike wrote:
Secondly, Catholics are not part of or bound to a legal framework set up by and approved by men outside the Church.


Oh yes, dear Mike! It is just this reality that we have in front of us. These men – that can have conserved the faith in their hearts – are (at least) externally submitted to a new legal system. They follow a new code of canon law. They follow legal orders of false authorities. They are submitted to false ecclesiastical courts. And so on.

Mike wrote:
I am not sure about the context of John's statement regarding why he thinks Archbishop Lefebvre is the better theologian. I think it better to refer this question to John, since it is his own thoughts at issue here. He is correct when he states, "The best theologian is the one who follows the authorities, not the one who is the most creative” Whatever you may think of Lefebvre, surely you agree with this second part of John's statement.


Lefebvre went against the Magisterium in matter of infallibility and he disobeyed systematically to the Pope.

Mike wrote:
I agree. It is easy for us to look at this from our time, and say what the Archbishop should have done. He had an immense responsibility to the Catholics who trusted his leadership. He probably asked himself, "among the entire hierarchy, why is no one else seeing this?" I do not judge his motives, I think his motives were pure and good, but I do wish things worked out differently.


I perfectly agree.


Mike wrote:
You press me for sources, and I have given you one, which I think in this case is sufficient, because it states what all of the others say who have spoken on the subject. I also gave you a link to other approved writings which state the same as the source I posted. Also, John has also given you the text of Vatican I, and the link to Cristian's research on sources from theologians on this. But, despite this, you make this sweeping statement, without any use of sources.


I have pressed you for a binding source and you have not provided.

Only the text of Vatican I is binding and I am going to comment.

Mike wrote:
You have shifted the visible and concrete presence of the hierarchy in the world to the end of time, to a "possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction." This means that there can be gaps in which apostolic succession ceases, and then restarts. To follow your logic, apostolicity can cease to be a mark of the Church for a given period of time, and the apostle's successors, completely gone from the earth, may at some future time return.


Do you think that the Papacy is ceased for the reason that we are in Sede vacante? I think no. Then, why do you think that the successors of the apostles are ended in case of vacancy of the Episcopal Sees?


Dear Mike, the last time for the rush I have forget to thank you for the pleasant discussion. So thank you. It is important to discuss with confidence, even staying on different position.

A cordial greeting


Ps: Perhaps there is a linguistic misunderstanding upon one point. When I said: “They may remain Catholics, but they have not reasons for to remain in communion with “popes” that teach errors. Give me one reason”; I did not want to know what is the simple “motive” or the mere “occasion”, but the rational motive. I make reference to the strict sense of the word “reason”, with reference to the Reason (rationem).


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:46 am
Profile E-mail

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

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

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


This source is binding. The statement (“ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem sæculi esse voluit”) concerns the matter of the permanence of the Ecclesia docens until the end of time. But, does the Cassiciacum Thesis really imply the end of the Church teaching and the end of the power of jurisdiction?
In Sodalitium n. 50 (French edition) pages 50-52, Fr. Ricossa tackles the issue:

[The TC is an Italian review of the SSPX]

La Thèse de Cassiciacum implique-t-elle vraiment la fin de l’Eglise enseignante (pp. 23-26) et la fin du pouvoir de juridiction (pp. 26-27)?
C’est ce que soutient le dossier, aux pages citées, reprenant, en cela aussi, ce qu’écrivait l’abbé Cantoni en son temps (63). Notre réponse se trouve déjà implicitement dans cet article, au chapitre dédié à l’indéfectibilité de l’Eglise; nous allons tâcher de la rendre explicite. L’Eglise que nous croyons indéfectible est l’Eglise fondée par le Christ, par conséquent une Eglise essentiellement hiérarchique. Dans l’Eglise il n’y a par institution divine qu’une seule hiérarchie, qui se distingue quant à l’ordre et quant à la juridiction. La hiérarchie, eu égard à l’ordre, comporte Evêques, prêtres et ministres; eu égard à la juridiction elle comporte le Pontificat suprême et l’épiscopat subordonné (cf. can. 108). L’Eglise sera donc pérpétuelle dans son pouvoir d’ordre comme dans son pouvoir de juridiction et de magistère, mais aliter et aliter, c’est-à-dire de façon différente. Pour ce qui regarde la pérennité du pouvoir d’ordre, la situation actuelle de l’Eglise ne pose pas de graves difficultés: la divine Providence a fait en sorte que l’offrande du Sacrifice divin et l’administration des sacrements ne cessent pas, même dans l’Eglise de rit latin, malgré la tentative d’abolition réalisée avec la réforme liturgique de Vatican II. Les consécrations épiscopales ont assuré la transmission dans l’Eglise de l’épiscopat pour ce qui regarde le pouvoir d’ordre, et la pérennité du sacerdoce pour la gloire de Dieu et le salut des âmes (64). C’est pour le pouvoir de gouverner l’Eglise et d’enseigner avec autorité, ce qui dépend du pouvoir de juridiction au sommet duquel il y a Pierre, que se trouve la difficulté. Si nous admettons en effet que le Siège est vacant, où est l’Eglise enseignante, se demande la TC? Où est l’Eglise hiérarchique? Ce que répondent en général les sédévacantistes c’est qu’à chaque mort d’un Pape et avant qu’un successeur soit validement élu, sans que rien ne spécifie la durée de ce laps de temps, l’Eglise est privée de Pape, privée donc d’un chef visible (elle est acéphale, elle est veuve de son pasteur): et pourtant elle ne cesse pas d’exister, et la promesse de perpétuité de l’Eglise comme de sa primauté n’en est pas rendue vaine pour cela. La TC n’accepte pas cette explication: “même dans les périodes ordinaires de siège vacant - est-il écrit à propos du pouvoir de magistère – c’est-à-dire entre la mort d’un pape et l’élection de son successeur, ce corps demeure - dans l’épiscopat - en tant que corps enseignant (…) il serait en effet monstrueux de penser que l’Eglise enseignante meure avec le pape pour ressusciter ensuite le jour de l’élection du nouveau pontife” (p. 23); “cette autorité - est-il écrit pareillement à propos de la juridiction – communiquée à l’Eglise est absolument pérpétuelle: elle a été, est, et sera présente tous les jours jusqu’à la fin des temps (inclus les moments compris entre la mort d’un pape et l’élection de son successeur, moments pendant lesquels elle continue à subsister dans l’épiscopat) (…)” (p. 26).
Le lecteur s’en rend bien compte, la TC ne fait que déplacer le problème de la pérennité et de l’indéfectibilité de la primauté papale à celle de l’épiscopat hiérarchique: la réponse sédévacantiste qui se fonde sur la possibilité de la vacance du siège apostolique est considérée comme vaine parce que, outre le Pape, viendraient aussi à manquer les évêques dans leur tâche d’enseigner et de gouverner. L’abbé Cantoni disait: ce n’est plus le problème du “Pape hérétique” [admis et étudié par tous les théologiens], mais celui de l’“Eglise hérétique” (Pape et évêques ensembles]!
Sans doute, les évêques résidentiels font partie de l’Eglise hiérarchique et de l’Eglise enseignante. Sans doute, l’épiscopat aussi, en tant que d’institution divine, est pérpétuel dans l’Eglise. Non seulement je l’admets, mais je le professe publiquement. Mais la TC ne prend pas suffisamment en considération le fait que l’épiscopat est fondé sur la primauté, et la pérennité de l’épiscopat sur celle de la primauté (Vatican I, D 1821, DS 3051-5052); nous l’avons vu
précédemment. Il me semble que de cette vérité découlent de nombreuses conséquences. D’abord, si la pérennité de la succession de la primauté n’est que moralement ininterrompue, on devra dire la même chose de celle de l’épiscopat. Or, pour la primauté une continuité morale est suffisante, continuité morale qui peut être interrompue par une plus ou moins longue vacance du siège: voici ce qu’écrit à ce sujet le Père Zapelena s.j., de l’Université Grégorienne, lorsqu’il parle de la pérennité de la primauté de Pierre (révélée par le Christ, Matth. XVI, 18, et définie par l’Eglise, D. 1825): “Il s’agit d’une succession qui doit durer continuellement jusqu’à la fin des siècles. Il suffit, évidemment, d’une continuité morale, qui n’est pas interrompue durant le temps pendant lequel est élu le nouveau successeur [le siège vacant]” (65). Si cela est vrai du chef, ce sera également vrai du corps épiscopal. Cette conclusion est confirmée par la
considération des tâches de l’Evêque résidentiel qui, pour la TC sont ininterrompues et perpétuelles à chaque instant du temps dans lequel vit l’Eglise: la juridiction et le magistère. Or, si la juridiction et le magistère du Pape peuvent, durant la vacance du siège, ne pas exister en acte, il pourra, à plus forte raison, en être de même pour la juridiction et le magistère épiscopal. En effet, l’évêque ne gouverne qu’une portion particulière de l’Eglise, et non l’Eglise universelle,
et c’est du Premier Siège, c’est-à-dire du Pape, source et principe de toute juridiction ecclésiastique que dérive toute sa juridiction. On peut en dire de même, et davantage encore, du magistère. Le magistère épiscopal, et pas seulement celui d’un simple évêque, mais aussi celui de tous les évêques réunis, n’est pas infaillible sans le Pape; durant la vacance (plus ou moins longue) du siège romain, il n’existe donc pas en acte de magistère infaillible qui puisse guider avec
certitude les fidèles (l’Eglise enseignante). Sans le Pape, l’Eglise - fondée sur Pierre (Matth. XVI, 18) - est réellement acéphale (privée de chef visible), veuve de son pasteur (sans gouvernement), privée de magistère infaillible: il manque en acte, mais non en puissance, l’Eglise hiérarchique telle que le Christ l’a instituée (autrement dit monarchique
et non épiscopalienne) (66); l’existence de l’épiscopat subordonné ne change pas substantiellement les choses de ce point de vue: l’Eglise - je le rappelle à la TC - n’est pas collégiale mais monarchique, fondée sur la Primauté de Pierre.
En quoi alors l’absence totale d’évêques résidentiels ou de cardinaux pourrait-elle compromettre l’existence de l’Eglise dans sa durée indéfectible? Seulement en ce qu’elle pourrait rendre impossible l’élection du successeur au siège de Pierre. “Durant la vacance du siège primatial - poursuit Zapelena dans le passage précédemment cité – il demeure dans l’Eglise le droit et le devoir (en même temps que la promesse divine) d’élire quelqu’un qui succède de façon légitime au Pape défunt dans les droits de la primauté. Durant tout ce temps la constitution ecclésiastique ne change pas en ce sens que le pouvoir suprême n’est pas dévolu au collège des évêques ou des cardinaux, mais la loi divine concernant l’élection du successeur demeure”.
Où se trouve donc l’Eglise hiérarchique, l’Eglise enseignante, comme l’a voulue le Christ, c’est-à-dire fondée sur la primauté de Pierre, durant la vacance du Siège apostolique? L’axiome ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia est toujours valide. Là où est Pierre, là est l’Eglise. Durant le siège vacant, “la Papauté, sans le Pape, se trouve dans l’Eglise seulement en une puissance ministériellement élective, car elle [l’Eglise] peut, durant la vacance du Siège, élire le Pape par l’intermédiaire des cardinaux ou, en une circonstance (accidentelle), par elle-même” (Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritate Papæ et Concilii, n° 210) (67).
Durant la vacance du siège, ce n’est pas tant le magistère faillible des évêques ou le gouvernement réduit et local des évêques qui maintient l’Eglise du Christ: c’est le fait qu’Elle ait cette puissance élective du nouveau Pape, comme le rappelle l’abbé Lucien citant P. Goupil et Antoine (68). Or, la Thèse de Cassiciacum soutient justement que, dans la vacance très particulière du siège apostolique que nous vivons, reste toujours possible la provision de ce même siège et le fait d’avoir de nouveau un Pape légitime, soit parce que l’occupant actuel du siège apostolique pourrait retrouver sa pleine légitimité (comme l’écrivait, bien avant le Père Guérard - en 1543! - le Cardinal Jérôme Albani) (69), soit parce que les évêques ou cardinaux même materialiter peuvent ou bien procéder à une élection papale valide et juridiquement légitime grâce à la succession matérielle sur les sièges (70), ou bien encore, ayant recouvré leur autorité, procéder à la constatation de l’hérésie formelle de Jean-Paul II et à l’élection d’un successeur. Le sédévacantisme, du moins dans la Thèse de Cassiciacum (71), n’implique donc pas la négation de l’indéfectibilité de l’Eglise, puisqu’il admet l’existence de la papauté “dans la puissance ministériellement élective de l’Eglise”.


I share this theological position.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:53 am
Profile E-mail

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

Thank you for your reply. My answers below.

1.
Quote:
Dear Mike,

Van Noort had not in front of his eyes the crisis that we know. But also in the reality that we examine, which is not equal to the cases that probably were considered by Van Noort, there is not reference to the Pope in the exercise of the power of jurisdiction.
In our case, it lacks the reference to the Pope not so much because there is not Pope, but because these bishops wanted to submit to a non-Pope. Indeed, if they really wanted to submit to a true Pope – now, in a period of vacancy of the See – they remain waiting for this true Pope or they would work for his election without to submit them to a false Pope.


I really think you are missing the point on this. My point is that you cannot use Van Noort as a source for the idea you are espousing. He did not say what you are saying. He said the bishops must reference the pope. But, there is no pope. Therefore, the statement from Van Noort is not not a source for your argument.

I disagree with your comment, "it lacks the reference to the Pope not so much because there is not Pope, but because these bishops wanted to submit to a non-Pope." Perhaps this is due to a language issue, but you must surely know that the bishops do not want to submit to a non-pope. Any of the remaining bishops with jurisdiction who are Catholic and are following the Vatican II claimants are either (1) ignorant about what they really do teach, or (2) understand what they teach, but think there is an orthodox way of understanding it (i.e. Brian Harrison method).

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

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

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

The unspoken reason for this is that these Catholics are victims of a crime. They are not members of a non-Catholic sect. They are trying to adhere to the One true Church. I would argue further that this goes for the bishops who retain their Catholic Faith as well. In my opinion, the faithful bishops are either ignorant of the facts, due to not reading or comprehending Vatican II teachings, or in some some delusional belief that Benedict and John Paul were good popes.

Either way, ignorance or a delusional belief about another man's heresy or status in the Church is not heresy or schism. You may even call it stupid if you like, but it is not in and of itself against the Faith.

2.
Quote:
Mike wrote:
I have not seen any sources which support this position. Bishops lose their jurisdiction through heresy or schism, (also excommunication and resignation but that is not relevant here), and that has not been proven in any of the cases of the bishops in question.


But nobody has said that these are the exclusives cases in which a bishop lose his jurisdiction. Now we know a new situation. For this reason the theologians of nowadays can elaborate doctrines appropriates to this situation, if these doctrines are not contraries to the Magisterium of the Church (attention: to the Magisterium and not to the opinions of the theologians of the past).


Gabriele, you are charting a very dangerous course when you leave the safety of the Church's theologians, especially when the theologians are in consensus about a particular doctrine. I would say that the course in addition to being dangerous is reckless and may be grounded in pride. The theologians of the Church are trained under the supervision of the authority of the Church, their writings are scrutinized by those commissioned by the Church, and it would be highly unlikely they could be wrong in cases when there is agreement among them.

Do you think it wise to follow writings not approved by the Church when they contradict the moral consensus of the theologians? Also, you must be aware that we have no theologians today. Also, if a priest were trained well in theology in the 1950's, but due to the crisis in the Church, he thought it necessary to depart from sound and accepted theological teaching, then I would say, that he has strayed from his good training. He should have tried to find a way to work within the theology he was taught, and not develop novel systems, which by the way have not been scrutinized or approved by the authority of the Church. Is it wise to follow unapproved theology, especially when the approved theology provides clear answers?

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


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


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

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

4.
Quote:
Mike wrote:
Secondly, Catholics are not part of or bound to a legal framework set up by and approved by men outside the Church.


Oh yes, dear Mike! It is just this reality that we have in front of us. These men – that can have conserved the faith in their hearts – are (at least) externally submitted to a new legal system. They follow a new code of canon law. They follow legal orders of false authorities. They are submitted to false ecclesiastical courts. And so on.


For those that are still Catholic, they submit to it through ignorance, not through willful participation. There is a difference. Every Catholic from the 1960's on that has ever lived under Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, and has believed them to be pope, adhered through ignorance at least to some degree to their laws, their appointments, etc. But, as I said before, when Catholics realized the true state of affairs, they abandon these imposters either completely or at least in practice, but they do not make an abduration to enter the Church, since they have never left the Church.

Every act of obedience by Catholics to the system controlled by these imposters is an act done through ignorance, not through agreement with an evil program.

How about a story to think about this: The king has died. The royal court has disguised an imposter and evil man to take control of the kingdom, with a false but convincing claim to the monarchy. The new king is in reality a traitor and is selling out his realm to the neighboring kingdom, despite the fact that this will lead to untold suffering upon the people. There is a division among those loyal to the king. Some say, "he is the rightful heir, who are we to question the king, he must know what he is doing with his policies." This group is further deceived by the fact that the imposter king uses every deceptive artifice available to him to deceive those in the kingdom into believing his royal claim and secondly that he is a good king. Another faction, far more aware than the first, has seen that this king is a false claimant, and his policies are evil and are undermining the kingdom. This faction refuses to obey him, and is seeking to protect the realm from his evil policies. Gradually, through the course of reasoned argument and presentation of evidence the second faction convinces some from the first group to understand that their loyalty to the king is misplaced, as he is a false claimant to the throne and is secondly an enemy to the kingdom.

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

5.
Quote:
Mike wrote:
You press me for sources, and I have given you one, which I think in this case is sufficient, because it states what all of the others say who have spoken on the subject. I also gave you a link to other approved writings which state the same as the source I posted. Also, John has also given you the text of Vatican I, and the link to Cristian's research on sources from theologians on this. But, despite this, you make this sweeping statement, without any use of sources.


I have pressed you for a binding source and you have not provided.

Only the text of Vatican I is binding and I am going to comment.


I believe that the text of the Vatican Council can only be interpreted in the manner I stating it: That the successors of the Apostles, (the hierarchy) must be always present in the world until the end of the time. This understanding that I have is not just my own, but it is the only understanding published in approved Catholic books up until the time of the crisis. The source I have you is in a book given approval by Rome and by numerous bishops, and in addition to my source, I linked you with others who say the same, and as I said before, to Cristian's research also saying the same thing. In short, all Catholics explicitly or at least implicitly believed this doctrine prior to the crisis in the Church.

I also believe that if you had lived in any other time in the history of the Church, you would never have held that the successor's of the apostles could cease to exist from the world for a given time. You love your faith too much for that, and besides that, you would have had to answer to the Church's authorities for this type of heretical position. In my opinion, you are only holding this view, because you do not see the other way. I am trying to tell you, (and John Lane and others as well), that there is another way, are you ready to look into it?

6.
Mike wrote:
You have shifted the visible and concrete presence of the hierarchy in the world to the end of time, to a "possibility to have again living bishops with the power of jurisdiction." This means that there can be gaps in which apostolic succession ceases, and then restarts. To follow your logic, apostolicity can cease to be a mark of the Church for a given period of time, and the apostle's successors, completely gone from the earth, may at some future time return.

Quote:
Do you think that the Papacy is ceased for the reason that we are in Sede vacante? I think no. Then, why do you think that the successors of the apostles are ended in case of vacancy of the Episcopal Sees?


Gabriele, you must be aware you cannot compare the temporary vacancy of papal office with the entire absence of the hierarchy. Our Lord deliberately set up the papal office to be filled with men who would die, and then be succeeded by men to take their place. He did not have to do it this way. He could have protected the pope from death, and the office would have never been vacant, but that was not the plan. The same goes for individual bishops who die and they are then succeeded by another bishop.

But, your argument is not this at all. It is radical. You are arguing that the entire world episcopate can cease to be, and that there is no longer in the world any bishops who are successors of the apostles. This directly opposes Our Lord's constitution given to the Church, which was that He commissioned the apostles to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful, and these apostles would have direct successors until the end of time. Some regions of the church may have been lost to heresy or other forces, but no Catholic would ever believe the entire hierarchy would end. I really wonder if you have thought about he implications of what you are saying.

Quote:
Dear Mike, the last time for the rush I have forget to thank you for the pleasant discussion. So thank you. It is important to discuss with confidence, even staying on different position.

A cordial greeting


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

Quote:
Ps: Perhaps there is a linguistic misunderstanding upon one point. When I said: “They may remain Catholics, but they have not reasons for to remain in communion with “popes” that teach errors. Give me one reason”; I did not want to know what is the simple “motive” or the mere “occasion”, but the rational motive. I make reference to the strict sense of the word “reason”, with reference to the Reason (rationem).
[/quote]

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

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:50 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Mike wrote:
They are ignorant, and they do not have a clue.

Yes. Absolutely. However, in many cases, it literally terrifies them to even suspect that what they accept as the Catholic Church is NOT the Catholic Church. They literally "cannot get their minds around" the very idea.

Mike wrote:
They live in little bubbles.

Yes. Exactly.

Mike wrote:
Have you ever asked yourself why Catholics who abandon the Vatican II church and become traditional Catholics do not have to make an abjuration from a sect, before entering the Church?

Well, one of the main reasons that Traditional Priests don't ask for an abjuration is that no abjuration has any validity unless it is done in the presence of a Bishop. No priest can demand such, and even if he did, it would have no validity.

Mike wrote:
Either way, ignorance or a delusional belief about another man's heresy or status in the Church is not heresy or schism. You may even call it stupid if you like, but it is not in and of itself against the Faith.

Yes. Well done, Mike. All is well done. Thank you.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:32 pm
Profile E-mail

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


John Lane posted :

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


Ironically , it is this very principle that bendict and the novus ordo hit well meaning catholics ( of the novus ordo ilk ) over the head. They say they are the true Bishops, and the traditional bishops ( they only recognize the SPPX in this group) have no Mission, and have not been " sent".

And since none in the Sede camp has ever put together a realistic thesis about " where the teaching church resides" it adds much confusion.


We in the sede camp are left with- by faith I know there is a bishop/s somewhere in the world with jurisdiction. But it is of course not the bishops we see.... e.g. CMRI, SGG, SSPV......


Ora Pro Nobis !

In Xto,

Vincent


Sat Aug 04, 2012 7:41 am
Profile

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


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

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

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

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

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
I know this has all been covered before, but here's another source explaining:

ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887
Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 149-151

339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?

A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule, made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant diocese The elections seem to have been held usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.

340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.

341. Bishops, however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.

342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.

343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere. Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.

344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?

A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.


Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:28 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
That's an excellent summary, Robert, thanks for posting it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
I'm a huge fan of summaries. :) They make life so much easier.

Here's another section from the same author that I posted on another thread awhile back:

ART. II.

Are Bishops the Successors of the Apostles-From whom do Bishops hold?

539. Q. In what sense are bishops the successors of the apostles?

A.-I. It is certain that in some sense, bishops are the successors of the apostles; but in what sense? Before answering we premise: Three powers must be distinguished in the apostles: 1, the potestas sacerdotii, or the power to consecrate the body and blood of our Lord and forgive sins; I 2, the potestas ordinis episcopalis, or the plenitude of the priesthood-i.e., the power to ordain priests, confirm, etc.; 3, the potestas apostolatus-i.e., the power to forgive sins everywhere, appoint bishops all over the world, etc.: in a word, the power to exercise, subordinately to Peter jurisdiction without any limit as to place, persons, or matters (jurisdictio universalis). These three powers were given the apostles by Christ himself.

II. Having premised this, we reply: I. Bishops are, as a body, not as individuals, the successors of the apostles; in other words, the collegium episcoporum succeeded the collegium apostolorum. Hence, with the exception of the Roman Pontiff and perhaps the Bishop of Jerusalem, no individual bishop can claim to be the successor of the apostles in the sense that the see occupied by him had one of the apostles for its first bishop. It cannot be said, therefore, that this or that bishop is the successor, v.g., of Andrew or John. 2. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, as to the potestas ordinis. For bishops have, by virtue of their consecration, the same character episcopalis with the apostles, and hence the same power of order. 3. Bishops, moreover, are the successors of the apostles, quoad potestatem jurisdictionis, though not quoad aequalitatem, but only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis. We say, only quoad similitudinem jurisdictionis, for the jurisdiction of the apostles, as we have shown, was universal; as such it was extraordinary, personal, and therefore lapsed with the apostles. The jurisdiction of bishops, on the other hand, is particular; what the apostles could do all the world over bishops can do only in their respective dioceses. Hence, the authority of bishops, as we have said, is similar, but not equal, to that of the apostles.


Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:00 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction
Vince wrote:
While the current respectable traditional Bishops do not have " jurisdiction over a particular diocese" I don' think that itself does not make them " successors of the apostles" in any sense. The phrase "apostolic succession" was used by the theologians in common conversation to also mean simply- valid "sacramental orders "

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


I think I understand why you use the additional term "respectable" in reference to those bishops who merely have order and no ordinary jurisdiction, but I fail to see the relevance of the term. If valid orders is what makes a man somehow a successor to the apostles, then this applies to even the ones who are not "respectable." If these bishops exist solely to attract the supplied jurisdiction for those acts simple priests are unable to provide (ordinations, confirmations, holy oils), then that is their purpose and we/they shouldn't go any further in our understanding. Now, I can and do understand why some want to go further, as the thought of a bishop merely providing the sacraments for Catholics the same as a simple priest does seems offensive, but in reality it isn't or at least shouldn't be. In my opinion, and I think the evidence shows, this attitude is corrosive and allows those particular Catholics to think they've got the Church back, when in fact, they do not. This, in turn, opens the door for those who adopt this attitude to take positions against other Catholics, positions which are arguably schismatic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Archbishop Lefebvre want a simple priest to be the Superior General of the SSPX for this very reason?


Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 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.