It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:03 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
 Pius XII Bishop Count 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Pius XII Bishop Count
I happened on an older post from about a year ago and the total of bishops still living and appointed by Pius XII was 13. I was curious as to what the count was now and checked on the Catholic Hierarchy website. So by my estimation, we are now down to 8 living bishops appointed by Pius XII. Here they are:

+ Van Cauwelaert C.I.C.M Ordained: Mar 25, 1954 Age: 100.23
+ Felice Leonardo Ordained: Sept 29, 1957 Age: 99.32
++ Pinera Carvallo Ordained: Apr 27, 1958 Age: 98.79
Fiorenzo Cardinal Angellini Ordained: June 29, 1956 Age: 97.93
+ Lima dos Santos Ordained: Aug 10, 1958 Age: 97.69
++Pimento Rodriguez Ordained: Aug 28, 1955 Age: 95.38
++ Pires Ordained: Sept 22, 1957 Age: 95.31
++ Hamilton-Pearce Ordained: June 29, 1956 Age: 93.49

You could of course add to this count the John XXIII bishops, the bishops appointed during the Council by Paul VI and the bishops consecrated until the new rite came about in 1968 but that is where all the controversies begin.

Now, how important is this to jurisdiction in the Church? That is an open question, but I suspect that when the last Pius XII appointed bishop goes to his reward, this question is bound to come up in discussions with our fellow Catholics. As Catholics subscribing to the sedevacante thesis, I think it behooves us to have some kind of coherent answer when the question is inevitably posed to us.


Luke


Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:19 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Thanks for this Luke. I think that the problem already poses itself precisely because we say, with all of the Fathers and Doctors, that open heresy results in the automatic loss of membership and ordinary jurisdiction. So the identity of the remaining members of the hierarchy is already a mystery, unless some of the men you have named are known still to be Catholics.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Also let us not forget that it could have been possible for some of them to have regained their office for some time.

I know there is a theory about Montini being replaced by a double. The evidence, really not sure what to make of it. Hypothetically, presuming that it is true that somehow Montini did indeed through some form of repentance gain back the faith. Then that would greatly increase the number, so long as they did not lose the Catholic faith. It matters little whether or not they were validly ordained, as they would have a valid mission from God.

All that we know is De Fide, is that there must be atleast one man out there with original jurisdiction. Anyone who says to the contrary is anathema. Now how this plays out, is something that God of course will know who has preserved the gift of faith etc...

Remember that even if Montini regained his office back for even one day, that would be sufficient to implicitly approve and give original jurisdiction to all the appointed men. I know for some theoretical speculation seems to be fruitless, but this is not far fetched as can be evidenced by some of the writings of Montini. He seems to vacillate a lot, and only God knows. All we know is that for all tense and purposes, whether it was from the beginning or at some point in-between. They lost office, personally I think it was from the start and they never had it. It is entirely possible they regained it at some x-time, and of course I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone. I would dare say it is not entirely inconceivable...

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
I wouldn't think that if a pope apostated and lost his office, that he would regain the office by simply repenting of his apostasy. When a churchman loses his office due to heresy or apostasy, the office is now vacant. Does it not have to be filled by an appropriate authority?

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:59 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
+ Van Cauwelaert C.I.C.M: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
+ Felice Leonardo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Pinera Carvallo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
Fiorenzo Cardinal Angellini: apparently never had ordinary jurisdiction
+ Lima dos Santos: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
++Pimento Rodriguez: ?
++ Pires: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Hamilton-Pearce: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction


Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus wrote:
+ Van Cauwelaert C.I.C.M: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
+ Felice Leonardo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Pinera Carvallo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
Fiorenzo Cardinal Angellini: apparently never had ordinary jurisdiction
+ Lima dos Santos: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
++Pimento Rodriguez: ?
++ Pires: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Hamilton-Pearce: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction


If the bishops that you suggest resigned and thus have no ordinary jurisdiction, gave their resignation to one who was not actually their superior, then that resignation would be invalid.


Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:33 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
TKGS wrote:
I wouldn't think that if a pope apostated and lost his office, that he would regain the office by simply repenting of his apostasy. When a churchman loses his office due to heresy or apostasy, the office is now vacant. Does it not have to be filled by an appropriate authority?


No, because what you are talking about is someone who was by name excommunicated. I might sound a bit sedeprivationist here, but there is some truth to that thesis. Particularly, where if all the impediments to their loss of office is gone, then they would once again by Christ's authority regain it back. Now lets remember, that it is not the sort of thing whereby you just simply say, "I was wrong."

No there is ultimately in the intellect of the heretic, a resignation to the teachings of the Church truly and wholly. They would have to renounce, even if just privately all of their previous errors. Now this is why I mention the whole double of Montini story, it is highly likely if someone were to have kidnapped him against his will. That he MIGHT have repented, and recanted his errors. Just because someone is bad willed for 2 decades, does not mean that he cannot change his mind at some other point. You can see from personal experience that many people who were anti-Catholic, after the cooperation of grace are now fully Catholic to the core. The reason why a traumatic event is necessary in order for this thesis to hold some historical water, is that if there was such a conspiracy it would prevent him from being public about his renouncement of his previous heresies.

If you ever did hold false erroneous ideas, heresies etc... You need to make a public profession of faith, especially if you are a real famous person. Make some sort of similar book of your retractions, etc... However, that really can't be done and proven if you are kidnapped. So, obviously where the theory breaks down (similar to that of the Siri thesis and all other similar theories that solely rely on conspiracy), that none of these things can be objectively proven without a reasonable doubt. However, I tend to see some speculative value because it helps outline, how some of these anti-popes could have theoretically regained back their office.

If someone else can prove me wrong, I would be more then happy to recant. I am not really familiar in this area, so I could be wrong.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:34 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Hi Jorge,

I disagree with all of that, pretty much, I'm sorry.

But what I do think is that if, for example, Paul VI or even Francis publicly rejected his own errors and professed the faith, he would become pope by acclamation. I think that's a sound principle which in practice covers all such actual or potential cases in history also. The parallel principle of tacit approval by the Roman Pontiff covers all similar cases regarding inferior offices. This suffices to refute those who cite "difficult" cases where somebody may have disappeared into heresy publicly but was never regarded as deposed, such as Archbishop Darboy of Paris. The over-all point is that obscure or difficult cases, those which sit at the margin of the known principles, are actually covered by one or other of those same principles, without creating any real difficulties. In a word, we don't need to solve every actual case in order to profess and defend sound principles of ecclesiology.

1. Open heretics are not members of the Church and cannot hold an office.
2. Catholics who claim the papacy and are accepted by the Church are elected by acclamation, if some other title is lacking.
3. Catholics who claim any other office and are accepted by the Roman Pontiff are appointed by his tacit approval, if some other title is lacking.

Don't wait for the sedeprivationists to debate or even notice such principles. They don't read and believe mere theologians like Billot or Bellarmine. They have their own ideas.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Recusant wrote:
Caminus wrote:
+ Van Cauwelaert C.I.C.M: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
+ Felice Leonardo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Pinera Carvallo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
Fiorenzo Cardinal Angellini: apparently never had ordinary jurisdiction
+ Lima dos Santos: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
++Pimento Rodriguez: ?
++ Pires: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Hamilton-Pearce: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction


If the bishops that you suggest resigned and thus have no ordinary jurisdiction, gave their resignation to one who was not actually their superior, then that resignation would be invalid.


Assuming that an error of fact would negate the validity of an express renunciation of office. I doubt this is the case.


Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus wrote:
Recusant wrote:
Caminus wrote:
+ Van Cauwelaert C.I.C.M: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
+ Felice Leonardo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Pinera Carvallo: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
Fiorenzo Cardinal Angellini: apparently never had ordinary jurisdiction
+ Lima dos Santos: resigned from titular see, no ordinary jurisdiction
++Pimento Rodriguez: ?
++ Pires: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction
++ Hamilton-Pearce: resigned, no ordinary jurisdiction


If the bishops that you suggest resigned and thus have no ordinary jurisdiction, gave their resignation to one who was not actually their superior, then that resignation would be invalid.


Assuming that an error of fact would negate the validity of an express renunciation of office. I doubt this is the case.


If I'm not mistaken, the NO church compels bishops to resign their sees at the age of 75. To me this is a forced resignation not a "renunciation of office." In any event, a resignation to an heretical usurper, who acts as though he occupys an office to which he has no right to claim as his own, would de facto be invalid.


Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, the NO church compels bishops to resign their sees at the age of 75. To me this is a forced resignation not a "renunciation of office." In any event, a resignation to an heretical usurper, who acts as though he occupys an office to which he has no right to claim as his own, would de facto be invalid.


This is just a restatement of the previous post, with the added comment about the age of retirement. But according to your own judgment, those laws are simply invalid, a mere fantasy, anyway, so there is no compulsion whatsoever. You should not appeal to laws which you presume do not exist.

The term "renunciation" and "resignation" were basically synonymous terms in the old Code. This was further divided into "express" and "tacit" renunciation. They renounce or resign their office by a free act of the will, as they choose to conform themselves to the law, and as was stated, an error in fact regarding the "identity" of their superior should not invalidate the effect of the renunciation.


Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus wrote:
Quote:
This is just a restatement of the previous post, with the added comment about the age of retirement. But according to your own judgment, those laws are simply invalid, a mere fantasy, anyway, so there is no compulsion whatsoever. You should not appeal to laws which you presume do not exist.



This has nothing to do with whether I believe the law to be valid or invalid. The point I was making is that a valid and licit bishop who never lost the faith could be Coerced into resigning his office due to a law he believed was promulgated by a true pope who was actually nothing of the kind. Thus, the resignation would be null due to the fact that the bishop in question was forced against his will to resign his office. Am I being clearer?

As for the other part of my argument, how can one submit their resignation to someone who is not in actuality their superior, but a usurper? Tomorrow, when I have a chance, I will check out the code to evaluate your argument. Can you give me some reference to support your case?


Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:10 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus!

On the hypothesis that the See is vacant, there is no superior to accept the resignation; but no express resignation is valid unless and until accepted by a superior. Ergo.

Don't cite the distinction between tactic and express resignations whilst glossing over the absolutely certain requirement, explicitly stated in the Code, that an express resignation is not valid until accepted by a superior. That's the law.

As for your other argument, it's complete nonsense, I'm sorry. If there's no superior but the subject believes that there is, then there is indeed a mistake of fact. I agree, this mistake of fact cannot cover for the absence of the required superior. How you can turn this around as if the mistake is somehow not invalidating something that would otherwise be valid is beyond my comprehension.

On our argument, the mistake of fact is not validating or invalidating anything. It's irrelevant as far as the effects of law are concerned. On YOUR argument this mistake of fact becomes a proxy for the presence of a superior. On YOUR argument the superior is deemed legally present because the subject mistakenly believes that he is present, and therefore his resignation is valid. This is bizarre "law" indeed!

Is baby Jack validly baptised if the priest truly believes that when he baptised baby Jane it was actually baby Jack? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Quote:
On the hypothesis that the See is vacant, there is no superior to accept the resignation; but no express resignation is valid unless and until accepted by a superior. Ergo.


When the Holy See is vacant through death or some other obvious cause, I concede. When the Holy See is judged to be vacant by one with no competence, I deny. The assumed premise is that your judgment has intervened in the case and is to be taken as a legal fact. Even in cases of suspicion, personal judgment is withheld and the presumption of validity stands. Do you suppose a Bishop tendering his resignation to the man thought to be the Roman Pontiff during the Western Schism would have been considered an invalid act? On the part of the Bishop, certainly not, for he fulfilled the requirements of the law in good faith. At most the resignation could be subject to rescission.

Quote:
Don't cite the distinction between tactic and express resignations whilst glossing over the absolutely certain requirement, explicitly stated in the Code, that an express resignation is not valid until accepted by a superior. That's the law.


I haven't glossed over it. The one who resigns is resigning to who he thinks, in good faith, is his superior. The fact that someone else judges him otherwise has no effect at all on the validity of the intention or just cause of the resignation. The law also states that where there is a defect, the law supplies. In the case of a jurisdictional act pertain to the moral realm of contracts, epikia would apply. The acceptance of the resignation is not of the essence of the resignation itself.

Quote:
As for your other argument, it's complete nonsense, I'm sorry. If there's no superior but the subject believes that there is, then there is indeed a mistake of fact. I agree, this mistake of fact cannot cover for the absence of the required superior. How you can turn this around as if the mistake is somehow not invalidating something that would otherwise be valid is beyond my comprehension.


It would indeed be nonsense if the Superior were the formal cause of the resignation, which is not the case. The inferior is tendering his resignation to who he thinks is his lawful superior and the man who thinks he is his lawful superior accepts the resignation. If the latter is not his true superior, this mistake of fact cannot invalidate the act, either because of certain moral principles involved or the fact that the Church supplies. You merely state, but do not prove “this mistake of fact cannot cover for the absence of the required superior” as if we’re dealing with a pure negation. There is in fact a superior according to the law and acceptance of the Church, the disorder and suspicion notwithstanding. On the part of one who does not even suspect a usurper, he certainly fulfills the requirements of the law. If the superior were later judged incompetent or illegal, the resignation would still stand based upon the moral and canonical principles cited.

Quote:
On our argument, the mistake of fact is not validating or invalidating anything. It's irrelevant as far as the effects of law are concerned. On YOUR argument this mistake of fact becomes a proxy for the presence of a superior. On YOUR argument the superior is deemed legally present because the subject mistakenly believes that he is present, and therefore his resignation is valid. This is bizarre "law" indeed!


As you have admitted elsewhere, the Church supplies for jurisdictional acts, so I’m not sure why you think this is so “bizarre”. Of course the mistake of fact doesn’t validate or invalidate anything, it is the act itself that is in question and whether an impediment exists which nullifies the act. In the case at hand, the good faith identification of one’s superior is sufficient to satisfy the law, otherwise one is forced to adopt an opinion completely outside of one’s competence. The fact that you do not fear to render such self-assured opinions well outside your competency in no way affects anyone else. In sum, on my argument, the presumption of validity stands until otherwise proven to be false or judged otherwise by competent authority. The superior is not “deemed legally present because the subject mistakenly believes that he is present” rather the law itself demands the legal presumption of validity of the officeholder prior to positing an act, just as a marriage is presumed to be valid until otherwise judged by competent authority, even if one suspects invalidity.

Quote:
Is baby Jack validly baptised if the priest truly believes that when he baptised baby Jane it was actually baby Jack? :)


This comparison does not hold, since an error touching upon the essence of a Sacrament is not equivalent to an accidental contractual error which does not touch the substance of the contract or the positing of some other legal act.
To a very similar object regarding error and the validity of marriage, St. Thomas replies:

“The character of baptism is not caused directly by the intention of the baptizer, but by the material element applied outwardly; and the intention is effective only as directing the material element to its effect; whereas the marriage tie is caused by the consent directly. Hence the comparison fails.” S.T., Suppl. IIIae, Q. 51, a.1, ad. 3


Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus wrote:
Quote:
On the hypothesis that the See is vacant, there is no superior to accept the resignation; but no express resignation is valid unless and until accepted by a superior. Ergo.


When the Holy See is vacant through death or some other obvious cause, I concede. When the Holy See is judged to be vacant by one with no competence, I deny. The assumed premise is that your judgment has intervened in the case and is to be taken as a legal fact. Even in cases of suspicion, personal judgment is withheld and the presumption of validity stands. Do you suppose a Bishop tendering his resignation to the man thought to be the Roman Pontiff during the Western Schism would have been considered an invalid act? On the part of the Bishop, certainly not, for he fulfilled the requirements of the law in good faith. At most the resignation could be subject to rescission.


Caminus, you're just making this up out of whole cloth. The law doesn't say that the resignation must sincerely be tendered, or tendered in good faith, or any other such notion. The resignation must be accepted by the superior or it isn't valid. This is a quality of resignation, as such. A tacit renunciation differs from a resignation precisely in this: that a tacit renunciation is accepted by the law itself. It is, in one aspect, a unilateral decision. But a resignation is not unilateral, it is not the sole choice of the office-holder. He didn't choose the office alone, and he can't resign it unilaterally.

On our hypothesis there's no intervention or any role at all for our "judgement." The matter is perfectly simple: either Paul VI was pope or he wasn't. On the hypothesis that he was pope, certain things follow. On the hypothesis that he wasn't, certain other things follow. The judgement only touches the question of which hypothesis is true. It isn't involved at all after that point. Within the system according to which Paul VI wasn't pope, no bishop could resign, because he had to have it accepted by his superior in order to make a valid resignation. You don't agree with the hypothesis, you think it mistaken, fine. But don't bring your own judgement into a system where it has no relevance. That is perfectly illogical!

You want me to "suppose" what the books might say about an hypothetical case during the GWS? Truly, this illustrates the situation perfectly. You don't have the answer from a commentator, you are just guessing. Go look it up and see what you can find!

Caminus wrote:
Quote:
Don't cite the distinction between tactic and express resignations whilst glossing over the absolutely certain requirement, explicitly stated in the Code, that an express resignation is not valid until accepted by a superior. That's the law.


I haven't glossed over it. The one who resigns is resigning to who he thinks, in good faith, is his superior. The fact that someone else judges him otherwise has no effect at all on the validity of the intention or just cause of the resignation. The law also states that where there is a defect, the law supplies. In the case of a jurisdictional act pertain to the moral realm of contracts, epikia would apply. The acceptance of the resignation is not of the essence of the resignation itself.


All your own complete invention, contrary to the law itself!

The question, I repeat, is not what somebody's judgement is or isn't. The question is what would the case be under the hypothesis that Paul VI was not pope? If he wasn't pope, he didn't have the competence to accept a resignation. A bishop who is mistaken about this will resign invalidly, despite his best efforts. Your own attempt to make the law subjective notwithstanding.

Caminus wrote:
Quote:
As for your other argument, it's complete nonsense, I'm sorry. If there's no superior but the subject believes that there is, then there is indeed a mistake of fact. I agree, this mistake of fact cannot cover for the absence of the required superior. How you can turn this around as if the mistake is somehow not invalidating something that would otherwise be valid is beyond my comprehension.


It would indeed be nonsense if the Superior were the formal cause of the resignation, which is not the case. The inferior is tendering his resignation to who he thinks is his lawful superior and the man who thinks he is his lawful superior accepts the resignation. If the latter is not his true superior, this mistake of fact cannot invalidate the act, either because of certain moral principles involved or the fact that the Church supplies. You merely state, but do not prove “this mistake of fact cannot cover for the absence of the required superior” as if we’re dealing with a pure negation. There is in fact a superior according to the law and acceptance of the Church, the disorder and suspicion notwithstanding. On the part of one who does not even suspect a usurper, he certainly fulfills the requirements of the law. If the superior were later judged incompetent or illegal, the resignation would still stand based upon the moral and canonical principles cited.


You are confusing the principles of morality with the effects of public law. Look at canon 188 and see how some of the things that result in a tacit renunciation are sins or crimes, and some are virtuous acts. Either way, the effect of loss of office still follows. In this present case you are turning a question of public order on its head, and making it depend upon the moral goodness of the subject's act. There's no shadow of a hint of this notion in the law. It's completely misplaced.

Caminus wrote:
Quote:
On our argument, the mistake of fact is not validating or invalidating anything. It's irrelevant as far as the effects of law are concerned. On YOUR argument this mistake of fact becomes a proxy for the presence of a superior. On YOUR argument the superior is deemed legally present because the subject mistakenly believes that he is present, and therefore his resignation is valid. This is bizarre "law" indeed!


As you have admitted elsewhere, the Church supplies for jurisdictional acts, so I’m not sure why you think this is so “bizarre”. Of course the mistake of fact doesn’t validate or invalidate anything, it is the act itself that is in question and whether an impediment exists which nullifies the act.


Jurisdiction is supplied for the common good, not for every act. Otherwise there'd be no point in canon 188 at all! But again, you have the wrong end of the pineapple completely. There's no question here of an "impediment" which might nullify an act. There's a question of an essential party to the decision who happens to be lacking. A perfect analogy would be a marriage attempted between a man and the wrong sister of a pair of twins. His error utterly invalidates the marriage. His good faith, his good intention, the rectitude of his acts in every possible moral aspect, is irrelevant. The party he intends to marry is absent, and another is present. He doesn't marry either of them, in fact.

Caminus wrote:
The superior is not “deemed legally present because the subject mistakenly believes that he is present” rather the law itself demands the legal presumption of validity of the officeholder prior to positing an act, just as a marriage is presumed to be valid until otherwise judged by competent authority, even if one suspects invalidity.


Again, you are very confused about how to apply these principles. Caminus, I agree that the validity of the resignation is presumed, in one sense (I'll go into this if you show any reasonableness on the rest of this matter). But this is utterly irrelevant. We're not talking about judging cases, we're talking about the hypothesis that Paul VI wasn't pope. On that hypothesis the resignations presumed valid are actually invalid. You have forgotten your own logical stance. I remind you, it is: On the hypothesis that Pius XII was the last pope (this is not my view, of course), then none of his bishops any longer have jurisdiction. Ergo, the hypothesis must be untrue. Logically, you cann't prove this by introducing the question of whether Paul VI was pope, and whose judgement it is. That he isn't pope is taken as given, for the sake of analysing the effects.

It's time for you to start from scratch on this question. You haven't read enough relevant material, and you haven't thought it through.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
I ditto John's response.

I think too many are confused as to how far good intentions go, and the problem of subjectivity in the moral sphere of the conscience. I hear this argument over and over and over, it takes different forms depending on the topic. The root problem is a misunderstanding of moral theology, subjective/objective reality, putative superiors (like in the GWS), guilt, conscience and other principles attached to these theological matters.

Many of the faithful that I spoke about the invalidity of the New Rites, are not saying they are invalid. In fact, they tend to agree, but they say that the desire of a layman can somehow confer grace... By his super pure intention he is able to do a quasi-transubstantiation. Yet, even they are able to understand the problem with what they suggest and sometimes merely because they think that with enough wishful thinking you can in fact confer every sacrament through desire.

Yes there is such a thing as spiritual communion's, and some holy men in fact did receive incredible spiritual grace through that means. What they fail to see, is if they do think or seriously doubt the ordination of the new Rites, then to attend the mass of a layman would be the equivalent of idolatry. Even if somehow through their intense desire for Our Lord received great spiritual graces and benefits.

Here is where I think John struck gold on the original topic discussed:

Quote:
The matter is perfectly simple: either Paul VI was pope or he wasn't.


Everything after this point depends upon the validity/invalidity of that thesis.

Quote:
You are confusing the principles of morality with the effects of public law.


Yes your private conscience does not change reality, all that it would do is not hold you accountable for something that otherwise you would be responsible. So if the person thinks he is now retired, but really can't be retired. If he is unaware of the objective reality, and keeps living his life as if he was retired. He would not be held responsible, that is the only thing that would happen. Thus the Bishop, would still keep his original jurisdiction so long as he did not defect from the Church through heresy.

Quote:
Jurisdiction is supplied for the common good, not for every act.


I also need to read much more on this topic, as I am still a bit confused on what specifically can be supplied.

Take for example canonical Prayer associations, and third order religious members. There are so many other canonically approved organizations, would it be legal to resurrect them or could even the jurisdiction be supplied to keep them alive? Maybe if someone help give me some authors on the topic, to help guide me. I am pretty sure what I do know is probably wrong as currently the only thing that I am currently aware is what the SSPX taught on the topic.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Quote:
The law doesn't say that the resignation must sincerely be tendered, or tendered in good faith, or any other such notion. The resignation must be accepted by the superior or it isn't valid. This is a quality of resignation, as such. A tacit renunciation differs from a resignation precisely in this: that a tacit renunciation is accepted by the law itself. It is, in one aspect, a unilateral decision. But a resignation is not unilateral, it is not the sole choice of the office-holder. He didn't choose the office alone, and he can't resign it unilaterally.


The law says that there must be a just cause for resignation and that it must be submitted to one's superior. The term "good faith" refers to the question of the legitimacy of the superior in this hypothetical scenario, not to the text of the law itself. The sole purpose for submitting a resignation into the hands of a superior is to maintain just order. The superior judges whether there is a just cause for resignation and nothing more. He doesn't add anything to the "essence" of resignation as such, it is an act of the officeholder alone in view of some necessitating cause, which is the raison d' etre of resignation or renunciation of office.

Quote:
On our hypothesis there's no intervention or any role at all for our "judgement." The matter is perfectly simple: either Paul VI was pope or he wasn't. On the hypothesis that he was pope, certain things follow. On the hypothesis that he wasn't, certain other things follow. The judgement only touches the question of which hypothesis is true. It isn't involved at all after that point. Within the system according to which Paul VI wasn't pope, no bishop could resign, because he had to have it accepted by his superior in order to make a valid resignation. You don't agree with the hypothesis, you think it mistaken, fine. But don't bring your own judgement into a system where it has no relevance. That is perfectly illogical!


Considering the question in the abstract, your opinion as to the fact or causes of the hypothetical non-pope doesn't come into play obviously. It is an academic exercise. But when you deduce or infer a thing from this hypothetical, certain causes and judgments must be brought into play. The fact that you seem to think it is absolutely impossible for a resignation to be valid in this particular hypothetical implies assumptions that must be taken into consideration. For example, if the superior is obviously not his superior, but someone of lesser or equal rank, and tendered his resignation anyway, the resignation would be invalid on its face for lack of due form and negligence. We would have a case where the error of fact is culpable. In the case where one supposes that the superior is false because of some other cause, one would need to determine the competency of the inferior to render such juridical judgments. If he is not competent and merely recognizes a putative dogmatic fact, then there is no reason to think that the Church would not supply for the defect. The quality of the circumstances, judgments and causes most certainly do play into deducing certain conclusions.

Quote:
You want me to "suppose" what the books might say about an hypothetical case during the GWS? Truly, this illustrates the situation perfectly. You don't have the answer from a commentator, you are just guessing. Go look it up and see what you can find!


Apparently, you can't seem to distinguish when you are already "supposing" something. Suppose St. Vincent Ferrer counseled a bishop to resign for good cause to the man he thought was Pope. If there ever were a case of common error, this would be one. Do you suppose the resignation would be considered invalid, valid or valid but subject to rescission?

Quote:
The question, I repeat, is not what somebody's judgement is or isn't. The question is what would the case be under the hypothesis that Paul VI was not pope? If he wasn't pope, he didn't have the competence to accept a resignation. A bishop who is mistaken about this will resign invalidly, despite his best efforts. Your own attempt to make the law subjective notwithstanding.


Such judgments certainly have an influence on the question depending on the line of reasoning. Are you refusing to admit that the law might supply in this case because it will hurt your judgment regarding the papacy and the effort at maintaining some semblance of orthodox ecclesiology? For to say that the law most certainly will not supply is to posit a judgment that needs further examination. Why would the law supply in other cases, but not this one? Is there any method by which you are judging this to be the case? Do you absolutely refuse to assent to the notion that the Church would probably supply for the defect?

Quote:
You are confusing the principles of morality with the effects of public law. Look at canon 188 and see how some of the things that result in a tacit renunciation are sins or crimes, and some are virtuous acts. Either way, the effect of loss of office still follows. In this present case you are turning a question of public order on its head, and making it depend upon the moral goodness of the subject's act. There's no shadow of a hint of this notion in the law.


The principles of morality form the basis of jurisprudence. On the contrary, it is your categorical refusal in admitting the exercise of equity that turns the public order on its head. For if your opinion were true, order wouldn't be maintained, but rather usurpers would be multiplied while valid shepherds failed in their duties, causing doubt and confusion in the minds of the faithful.


Quote:
Jurisdiction is supplied for the common good, not for every act. Otherwise there'd be no point in canon 188 at all! There's no question here of an "impediment" which might nullify an act. There's a question of an essential party to the decision who happens to be lacking.


Do I detect a some Anti-Pope sifting? Which juridical acts? If maintaining public order isn't part of the "common good" then I don't know what is. And the incompetence of the superior might be considered an impediment to the fulfillment of a juridic act. That's what "invalidity" means, it is null, void, non-existent.

Quote:
A perfect analogy would be a marriage attempted between a man and the wrong sister of a pair of twins. His error utterly invalidates the marriage. His good faith, his good intention, the rectitude of his acts in every possible moral aspect, is irrelevant. The party he intends to marry is absent, and another is present. He doesn't marry either of them, in fact.


It's apparent that you haven't consulted any author in this case, especially St. Thomas. You are confusing an essential error with an accidental error. An error that doesn't touch upon the essence of the contract is not invalidating. Superiors change, offices remain.

Quote:
Caminus, I agree that the validity of the resignation is presumed, in one sense.


Right.

Quote:
But this is utterly irrelevant.


Utterly?

Quote:
We're not talking about judging cases, we're talking about the hypothesis that Paul VI wasn't pope. On that hypothesis the resignations presumed valid are actually invalid.


I have to chuckle here a bit. How are you not descending from the hypothesis to particular case involving the validity of a resignation? And I do agree as well, they would actually be invalid if it were not for supplied jurisdiction.

The presumption of validity holds until competent authority decides otherwise, lest the common good be injured. One is compelled to presume validity, not the contrary.

It's not impossible. Indeed, it is quite probable.


Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus,

That is all absolute rubbish.

Go and get some texts and quote them.

For a start, you say, without any shadow of proof, that the superior's decision to accept or reject a resignation is non-essential. Prove it. This, if true, would be easy to show, as the commentators would teach it. But we already know you didn't get it from a commentary, you made it up. Go and consult the books and see how good at guessing you really are.

Second, you don't know anything about the law. You think that, as a rule, it takes into account the moral dispositions of men in determing the validity or invalidity, lawfulness or unlawfulness, of their acts. It doesn't. When exceptionally it does do so, it explicitly states the exception in clear terms. The relevant laws here contain no such terms. The good or bad faith of the office-holder offering his resignation is irrelevant. He wants to resign; the superior judges whether or not to accept it. If accepted, it's valid; if not accepted, it's null. That's the law. Again, go look it up!

Thirdly, don't worry about my motives. I'm a sinner, and my motives may well be rotten in any given case. Instead of psycho-analysing me to find out why I insist on the law itself and don't buy your random and unfounded speculations, why not go and do some reading and see which of us right? That way at least you can be more comfortable about your own motives...

Fourthly, St. Thomas's doctrine is utterly irrelevant. Citing him is just a way of begging the question at issue. You flatly assert a complete falsehood, which is that the decision of the superior is non-essential, and then turn to St. Thomas to see what he says about the absence of the non-essential? Please! No wonder the world is full of sedeplenists!

Finally, you flip arguments and talk about supplied jurisdiction. If jurisdiction in the superior is required for a valid resignation, then it's essential. If not, then why bring it in? You give away the whole game when you write, "And I do agree as well, they would actually be invalid if it were not for supplied jurisdiction." If that's your argument, drop all that other rubbish about superiors not being essential to resignations, and good faith, and moral principles, and instead go off and prove that the act of accepting a resignation is one of those which may attract the supply of jurisdiction. But for heaven's sake, please don't waste our time by arguing both at the same time (they contradict each other!), and please don't pursue any of this without quoting some texts!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 53
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
John Lane wrote:
Caminus,

That is all absolute rubbish.

Go and get some texts and quote them.

For a start, you say, without any shadow of proof, that the superior's decision to accept or reject a resignation is non-essential. Prove it. This, if true, would be easy to show, as the commentators would teach it. But we already know you didn't get it from a commentary, you made it up. Go and consult the books and see how good at guessing you really are.

Second, you don't know anything about the law. You think that, as a rule, it takes into account the moral dispositions of men in determing the validity or invalidity, lawfulness or unlawfulness, of their acts. It doesn't. When exceptionally it does do so, it explicitly states the exception in clear terms. The relevant laws here contain no such terms. The good or bad faith of the office-holder offering his resignation is irrelevant. He wants to resign; the superior judges whether or not to accept it. If accepted, it's valid; if not accepted, it's null. That's the law. Again, go look it up!

Thirdly, don't worry about my motives. I'm a sinner, and my motives may well be rotten in any given case. Instead of psycho-analysing me to find out why I insist on the law itself and don't buy your random and unfounded speculations, why not go and do some reading and see which of us right? That way at least you can be more comfortable about your own motives...

Fourthly, St. Thomas's doctrine is utterly irrelevant. Citing him is just a way of begging the question at issue. You flatly assert a complete falsehood, which is that the decision of the superior is non-essential, and then turn to St. Thomas to see what he says about the absence of the non-essential? Please! No wonder the world is full of sedeplenists!

Finally, you flip arguments and talk about supplied jurisdiction. If jurisdiction in the superior is required for a valid resignation, then it's essential. If not, then why bring it in? You give away the whole game when you write, "And I do agree as well, they would actually be invalid if it were not for supplied jurisdiction." If that's your argument, drop all that other rubbish about superiors not being essential to resignations, and good faith, and moral principles, and instead go off and prove that the act of accepting a resignation is one of those which may attract the supply of jurisdiction. But for heaven's sake, please don't waste our time by arguing both at the same time (they contradict each other!), and please don't pursue any of this without quoting some texts!


Rubbish indeed! You would like to be get some quotes entertaining the hypothesis of bishop resigning to a usurper, all else being equal? Is that not an absurd request? The best we can do is apply known principles. You pertinaciously refuse to admit that in the case of common error, jurisdiction is not supplied, as if there is no need for further comment. Thus, it is perfunctorily stated that all such resignations are invalid. The reality is that they were probably valid for the reasons mentioned. Maybe some were not valid because of differing circumstances, but I doubt it.

The acceptance of a resignation is manifestly not of the essence of resignation, but rather an integral part of public law to maintain order. The superior judges the causes and circumstances, he therefore "perfects" the act itself. The one who resigns posits his act which is essentially independent of his superior. "[H]e solved the difficulty by saying that such a resignation held as far as the resigning party was concerned, but the Church could recall him to office again."

"The Glossator of a letter of Pope Nicholas I offered a solution to the effect that a renunciation of office made without the superior's knowledge or in the hands of another was valid as far as the one resigning was concerned, but that it did not bind the Church to recognize it as such."

"St. Raymond of Pennafort shared the opinion of the Glossator, and stated that the resignation held as far as the one renouncing the benefice was concerned, but that the Church could recall him to the benefice."

"Thus, these authors held that the one resigning had to observe his part of the contract, namely, the renunciation of the office, even though the resignation itself was invalid."

"The renunciation of an ecclesiastical office, like other juridical acts, may be influenced by various vitiating elements."

Quotes taken from "The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary" Rev. Gerald McDevitt, S.T.L., 1946.

Both the act of renunciation and the judgment of the superior are juridical acts. Essentially independent but integral insofar as the maintenance of the public order is concerned. There's no "contradiction" is analyzing a case from different aspects. The fulfillment of every law must take into consideration subjective dispositions. For example, one must be free from grave unjust fear, competent, etc.

In sum, you can't say for certain whether most, if any, of these resignations were absolutely invalid. You have no certainty in the matter, so stop pretending that you do. Especially, stop misleading others in thinking they do as well.


Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:07 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus wrote:
You pertinaciously refuse to admit that in the case of common error, jurisdiction is not supplied, as if there is no need for further comment. Thus, it is perfunctorily stated that all such resignations are invalid.


Mate, that's a statement of principle. Of course it looks "perfunctory" to you, but you aren't accustomed to clear thought. It's no different from Cum ex apostolatus stating that all of the acts of a heretic-claimant pope would be null, or St. Thomas saying that anything that a schismatic does which requires jurisdiction would be invalid. We all know that absent jurisdiction may, in certain circumstances, be supplied, but those of us with working heads recognise that the appeal to supplied jurisdiction is an implict yet certain admission that the act is invalid otherwise - because of lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter we have a clear principle which you have denied and now admitted.

Resignation must be accepted by the superior in order for it to be valid.

Even your own quotes from McDevitt make that clear, if it weren't already something you admitted by appealing to supplied jurisdiction. For the acceptance to be necessary, it must be of the essence of the thing. There's no third possibility.


Caminus wrote:
The acceptance of a resignation is manifestly not of the essence of resignation, but rather an integral part of public law to maintain order. The superior judges the causes and circumstances, he therefore "perfects" the act itself. The one who resigns posits his act which is essentially independent of his superior.


Bizarre. Let's see how these assertions fare in the light of your own quotes.

Caminus wrote:
"[H]e solved the difficulty by saying that such a resignation held as far as the resigning party was concerned, but the Church could recall him to office again."


I'd like to see the difficulty being addressed here (my copy of McDevitt has disappeared). On the face of it the quote supports the obvious fact that a resignation which has not been accepted is invalid. It proposes that some practical problem or other (omitted by you) can be solved by the man who offered the resignation being bound to act as if it had been accepted, and then goes on to emphasize that the Church isn't herself bound because actually there's no resignation. So this isn't a matter of public law as such but rather it reduces the unstated difficulty to a question of morality affecting the one person - the one who offered his resignation.

Caminus wrote:
"The Glossator of a letter of Pope Nicholas I offered a solution to the effect that a renunciation of office made without the superior's knowledge or in the hands of another was valid as far as the one resigning was concerned, but that it did not bind the Church to recognize it as such."


In other words, the resignation is invalid but the one offering it is morally bound to act upon it. Nor is this Catholic doctrine, but rather nothing more than a "solution" offered by a commentator.

Caminus wrote:
"St. Raymond of Pennafort shared the opinion of the Glossator, and stated that the resignation held as far as the one renouncing the benefice was concerned, but that the Church could recall him to the benefice."


A repeat of the previous solution.

Caminus wrote:
"Thus, these authors held that the one resigning had to observe his part of the contract, namely, the renunciation of the office, even though the resignation itself was invalid."


Did you mean to prove yourself wrong so spectacularly?

Caminus wrote:
"The renunciation of an ecclesiastical office, like other juridical acts, may be influenced by various vitiating elements."


Exactly, and some are invalidating - like the absence of the superior.

Caminus wrote:
Both the act of renunciation and the judgment of the superior are juridical acts. Essentially independent but integral insofar as the maintenance of the public order is concerned.


Any proof of this? No. One of your quotes describes a resignation as a "contract." A contract is a permanent relation between two parties. No relation exists in the absence of one party, by the very nature of the thing, as is obvious to all.

Caminus wrote:
In sum, you can't say for certain whether most, if any, of these resignations were absolutely invalid. You have no certainty in the matter, so stop pretending that you do. Especially, stop misleading others in thinking they do as well.


:) I repeat:
John Lane wrote:
You have forgotten your own logical stance. I remind you, it is: On the hypothesis that Pius XII was the last pope (this is not my view, of course), then none of his bishops any longer have jurisdiction. Ergo, the hypothesis must be untrue.


We don't have to prove anything beyond the thing stated clearly by the law, and futilely denied (then admitted) by you: the acceptance by the superior is essential to the validity of a resignation. With that, your case against sedevacantism collapses. You need a new argument.

You cannot turn and demand that we prove that all particular resignations are invalid because no jurisdiction was supplied in each of those cases, or every other potentially healing element (what would they be?) was absent. That is not logical. We would then be required to prove a negative, when all that we are doing is answering your own syllogism.

Now, isn't life a lot simpler when you go to the texts and actually read them?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Pius XII Bishop Count
Caminus do you believe with Divine and Catholic faith, that original jurisdiction cannot disappear totally? If not, please explain. I am having a hard time pin pointing what the whole argument is essentially about. Thanks!

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.