Post by Pacelli on Oct 24, 2022 11:12:10 GMT -5
FatherCekada wrote:
Fr. Cekada puts his argument forth here asking John Lane to name a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, but is that a valid way of arguing as a Catholic? He also asks John Lane to prove his assertion that "that there must necessarily exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect."
To the first matter, Catholics believe the Faith, and do not need to prove the Faith with facts, they accept it as what God has revealed. For example, if someone is saying, "the Holy Eucharist is bread and wine, and I am challenging you to prove otherwise," my answer would be that I believe the truth of this matter, that it is only the appearance of bread and wine to the senses, but in reality the Holy Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, as God has revealed this."
The same could be said about other matters of Faith. Can anyone prove that baptism washes away original sin, or prove that original sin is actually present? We believe these truths because God has revealed them to us. We don't need to see with our eyes or need supporting data through our senses to believe.
The Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession is also part of our Faith. We don't need to see any bishop to believe it, it's true because God has revealed it to us, and our duty is to believe it, and if we deny it, then our Faith is lost.
To the second matter, John Lane did not need to provide a source which states that there will always be at least one successor of the Apostles, it's a logical inference from the fact that they must always exist and be present in the world until the end of time. If I tell someone that there must always be candy in the candy jar, one can logically infer that there would always be at least one piece left, and if it ran out, then my statement would be false. But, we know that the teaching of the Church cannot be false, ergo...
Fr. Cekada was not stupid, so he could have easily reasoned this that this was a logical inference, therefore it would not be specifically found by a theologian. So why did he use it? Who knows, but it looks to me like a diversion by someone who was obfuscating the issue at hand.
Posted: Aug 6 2012, 02:30 PM
Fine.
For the the sake of argument, let us assume that your understanding of Vatican I's teaching that "in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time" does indeed mean exactly what you claim:
"...that there must necessarily exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect."
Here is a link to CatholicHierarchy.org which lists all 2,797 archdioceses and dioceses in the worlds, together with their ordinaries:
www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/lc.html
Which of these prelates, from Bishop Mussinghoff of Aachen to Bishop Német of Zrenjanin, is the "ONE BISHOP WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION" who now necessarily exists "in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect"?
Fine.
For the the sake of argument, let us assume that your understanding of Vatican I's teaching that "in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time" does indeed mean exactly what you claim:
"...that there must necessarily exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect."
Here is a link to CatholicHierarchy.org which lists all 2,797 archdioceses and dioceses in the worlds, together with their ordinaries:
www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/lc.html
Which of these prelates, from Bishop Mussinghoff of Aachen to Bishop Német of Zrenjanin, is the "ONE BISHOP WITH ORDINARY JURISDICTION" who now necessarily exists "in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect"?
Fr. Cekada puts his argument forth here asking John Lane to name a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, but is that a valid way of arguing as a Catholic? He also asks John Lane to prove his assertion that "that there must necessarily exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect."
To the first matter, Catholics believe the Faith, and do not need to prove the Faith with facts, they accept it as what God has revealed. For example, if someone is saying, "the Holy Eucharist is bread and wine, and I am challenging you to prove otherwise," my answer would be that I believe the truth of this matter, that it is only the appearance of bread and wine to the senses, but in reality the Holy Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, as God has revealed this."
The same could be said about other matters of Faith. Can anyone prove that baptism washes away original sin, or prove that original sin is actually present? We believe these truths because God has revealed them to us. We don't need to see with our eyes or need supporting data through our senses to believe.
The Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession is also part of our Faith. We don't need to see any bishop to believe it, it's true because God has revealed it to us, and our duty is to believe it, and if we deny it, then our Faith is lost.
To the second matter, John Lane did not need to provide a source which states that there will always be at least one successor of the Apostles, it's a logical inference from the fact that they must always exist and be present in the world until the end of time. If I tell someone that there must always be candy in the candy jar, one can logically infer that there would always be at least one piece left, and if it ran out, then my statement would be false. But, we know that the teaching of the Church cannot be false, ergo...
Fr. Cekada was not stupid, so he could have easily reasoned this that this was a logical inference, therefore it would not be specifically found by a theologian. So why did he use it? Who knows, but it looks to me like a diversion by someone who was obfuscating the issue at hand.