Post by wenceslav on Oct 27, 2019 22:35:15 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli,
You are probably aware of the recent flurry of activity on the SD forum (members-only sedevacantist sub-forum) involving the very knowledgeable member, Nazianzen. I have saved one interesting thread here - Topic: Apostolic Succession in the Vatican II era. Note, I saved it on my google drive account since it’s not accessible unless you’re a registered member on SD.
I agree with everything that Naz says in this thread or elsewhere on SD. I would like to focus on the following paragraph from Naz’s OP.
I think we can agree to everything in the above. I have bolded one sentence in the above quote i.e. The appointment of a Catholic to an existing see is not the same thing as creating a see. An episcopal see has ordinary jurisdiction attached to it by the original true Pope who created it. And this is where I hope you and others could share your own thoughts on this issue.
Many eparchies, at least in the USA and Canada, were created by false-popes. For example, the Ukrainian Eparchy of Stamford was created in 1983, the Ukrainian Eparchy of Chicago was created in 1961, the SyroMalankara Eparchy was created in 2001 etc. There are many more. Hence, since a false-Pope cannot create an Eparchy or diocese any more than I can, these newly created episcopal sees in the post-Counciliar era are not really sees at all and they do not have ordinary jurisdiction attached to them. If this is the case, even a Catholic candidate appointed to such a see could not possess ordinary jurisdiction.
I would appreciate comments especially if there is a flaw in my logic.
You are probably aware of the recent flurry of activity on the SD forum (members-only sedevacantist sub-forum) involving the very knowledgeable member, Nazianzen. I have saved one interesting thread here - Topic: Apostolic Succession in the Vatican II era. Note, I saved it on my google drive account since it’s not accessible unless you’re a registered member on SD.
I agree with everything that Naz says in this thread or elsewhere on SD. I would like to focus on the following paragraph from Naz’s OP.
The appointment of a Catholic to an existing see is not the same thing as creating a see. An episcopal see is an office. In canon law an office in the Church is a stable position to which is attached some power, of orders or jurisdiction, and in the case of an episcopal see, this power is ordinary jurisdiction. So, to recap, an existing episcopal see has ordinary jurisdiction attached to it by the pope who originally created it, and whoever succeeds to that office gets the ordinary jurisdiction with it.
...
So, for example, it’s 1975, and the Patriarch of the Chaldeans dies. His coadjutor has the right of succession. Both have remained Catholics. They have not replaced the liturgy of the Catholic Church with a synthetic, man-centred substitute, nor have they driven faithful Catholics from the churches, unlike what has been done across the West. The local clergy have always elected their bishop. They have no objection to the proposed successor. The bishop succeeds subject to the approval of Rome. The usurper in the Vatican gives his approval.
...
So, for example, it’s 1975, and the Patriarch of the Chaldeans dies. His coadjutor has the right of succession. Both have remained Catholics. They have not replaced the liturgy of the Catholic Church with a synthetic, man-centred substitute, nor have they driven faithful Catholics from the churches, unlike what has been done across the West. The local clergy have always elected their bishop. They have no objection to the proposed successor. The bishop succeeds subject to the approval of Rome. The usurper in the Vatican gives his approval.
I think we can agree to everything in the above. I have bolded one sentence in the above quote i.e. The appointment of a Catholic to an existing see is not the same thing as creating a see. An episcopal see has ordinary jurisdiction attached to it by the original true Pope who created it. And this is where I hope you and others could share your own thoughts on this issue.
Many eparchies, at least in the USA and Canada, were created by false-popes. For example, the Ukrainian Eparchy of Stamford was created in 1983, the Ukrainian Eparchy of Chicago was created in 1961, the SyroMalankara Eparchy was created in 2001 etc. There are many more. Hence, since a false-Pope cannot create an Eparchy or diocese any more than I can, these newly created episcopal sees in the post-Counciliar era are not really sees at all and they do not have ordinary jurisdiction attached to them. If this is the case, even a Catholic candidate appointed to such a see could not possess ordinary jurisdiction.
I would appreciate comments especially if there is a flaw in my logic.