|
Post by marcellusfaber on Sept 20, 2023 6:56:37 GMT -5
I'm sure we agree here that the problem which is preventing the resolution of this current crisis is the refusal of the remaining diocesan bishops to act; for a resolution to the crisis, the remaining bishops need to be convinced to act, or we need a mechanism for the appointment of new diocesan bishops who will act. For this reason, I have two questions: 1) Does anyone know of any canonists or theologians who comment on the appointment of bishops to neighbouring sees by diocesan bishops? The only evidence I know of for this is the source +Pivarunas gave concerning the 1270s Interregnum. I've also heard it claimed that St Athanasius did so, but I haven't found any sources stating so. 2) Does anyone know of any canonists or theologians who comment on the popular acclamation of bishops by the laity and clergy of the diocese? I have read in the Catholic Encyclopedia that St Ambrose was elected in this way, but I would like to know if this is still a valid method of election at the current time.
I know I may be criticised for trying to save the Church with this post, and, of course, the Church does not need saving. However, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to consider practical means by which this crisis could be resolved.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 21, 2023 6:39:22 GMT -5
marcellusfaber wrote: The practice of neighboring bishops choosing bishops for other dioceses was old practice, that were replaced as the pope, over time, took that power directly to himself. The same can be said about the local clergy electing their own bishops. This leads to a question: since the popes for a very long time, many centuries have shown that this practice is no longer their will, and as all law now forbids this practice, at least in the Latin rite, can we presume that this practice due to the crisis would be legitimate? I have thought on this question and I am very uncertain about it, and my opinion is that this is most likely not a good idea, as it may easily lead to new schisms and make things worse than they already are. I will find some of the sources that I have read in this, the early elections of bishops, and post them. Bishop Pivarunas is relying on a historical account, but I have never read any commentary by the theologians on the account. I am not certain what the law and practice of the Church was in 1270 regarding episcopal appointments, that would have to be researched. If the popes allowed or tolerated this practice, then it would create a doubt of the law, which may attract jurisdiction to supply for the appointments. Regarding the traditionalist accounts of St. Athanasius consecrating bishops and appointing them on his own initiative, without relying on local elections of clergy or any other manner consistent with the practices of the time, to vacant or Arian sees, I did research this more in depth, and my current provisional conclusion is that this is most likely bunk. I've read through many of the biographies on St. Athanasius and I have yet to see any accounts of him doing this. The only account I found was one case in which the local clergy elected a bishop, and he consecrated the man who was elected. If anyone on here has researched this and can shed more light on this from solid sources, then please do.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Sept 21, 2023 7:58:59 GMT -5
I have identified a diocese which has very few Catholics in it (500 according to Catholic Hierarchy), only two priests (both ordained after the changes), and which has been vacant since 1939: www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dchio.htmlThe diocese of Chios in Greece currently has the putative Archbishop of Naxos, Andros, Tinos e Mykonos as an Apostolic Administrator. If election by popular acclamation is legitimate, then it could be arranged for a Catholic bishop to be acclaimed as the diocesan bishop without controversy of intruding upon the See. Though the rest of my thought for a resolution to the crisis relies upon diocesan bishops consecrating bishops for neighbouring dioceses which are vacant, followed by an imperfect council declaring the Holy See vacant and electing a new Pope. I do agree that I can see such an action leading to even more mess, though we are already in such a terrible and confusing mess that one wonders how it could be much worse.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Sept 21, 2023 10:13:40 GMT -5
Hi Marcel, The quote, below, is a letter from Archbp. Lefebvre to Bp. de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil shortly before their death the following year. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly thought it possible that the clergy of Campos (the majority still being Catholic) could indeed elect a bishop for Campos. With respect to the diocese in Greece, I’m not sure how one would go about it. Firstly, it would have to be ascertained if the two resident priests are Catholic. Even if they are doubtfully ordained in the new rite, if Catholic, they may have acquired habitual jurisdiction in their parish as true pastors by common error in their appointments. I am positing here, but if these remaining priests and faithful (i.e. those who have the Catholic Faith) elect one of the priests as a bishop for their diocese, and if he accepts he would become the true resident bishop of Chios. He can then ask one of the traditional Catholic bishops (SSPX or CMRI) for conditional ordination and then episcopal consecration. See url: www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_Bishop_de_Castro_Mayer.htm
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 21, 2023 12:52:40 GMT -5
I have identified a diocese which has very few Catholics in it (500 according to Catholic Hierarchy), only two priests (both ordained after the changes), and which has been vacant since 1939: www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dchio.htmlThe diocese of Chios in Greece currently has the putative Archbishop of Naxos, Andros, Tinos e Mykonos as an Apostolic Administrator. If election by popular acclamation is legitimate, then it could be arranged for a Catholic bishop to be acclaimed as the diocesan bishop without controversy of intruding upon the See. Though the rest of my thought for a resolution to the crisis relies upon diocesan bishops consecrating bishops for neighbouring dioceses which are vacant, followed by an imperfect council declaring the Holy See vacant and electing a new Pope. I do agree that I can see such an action leading to even more mess, though we are already in such a terrible and confusing mess that one wonders how it could be much worse. Even if it could be argued that the neighboring bishops in our times could do this, and I am not certain on that, but for the sake of argument let's say they can, then here are some practical considerations: 1. I think, even if the neighboring bishops could be identified as being certainly office-holders, and have not lost their offices due to heresy, it would still be highly improbable that they would be willing to consecrate a bishop for a vacant see, unless first they are convinced that Francis isn't pope. So far, that has yet to happen, despite the fact that Francis has no longer been hiding his statements behind ambiguity and is very explicitly contradicting Catholic teaching on many points. 2. If a bishop were selected in this manner, would the remaining clergy and laity of the diocese even recognize this fact? Will they submit to him? If I had to guess, I would say no, they would not, and would most likely reject his claim. 3. If the solution were to attempt to fill vacant sees with neighboring bishops or have some sort of election by any remaining diocesan clergy, my fear on this would be that it would be a possible path for some wayward traditionalists who may get involved, sort of like what happened to +Thuc, except in this case, it may be some obscure Trad bishop who may approach some elderly and possibly gullible priests in a diocese and convince them to elect him as bishop of the diocese. I highly doubt that any of the greater majority of traditional Catholics would accept it, so all we would have is another little sect, with the bishop claiming a diocesan see, who almost no one believes is legitimate. 4. Every action that has organized Catholics to restore a pope, has all ended in miserable failure, and has led to the formation of sects, and it seems to me that any action such as this on the diocesan level, without clear signs from God blessing it would most likely end in a similar way. If you ever read about Palma de Troya, it is in my opinion a warning to all of us that any such action that has a possible justification but is not of God, will only lead to a terrible ending. In the case of Palma de Troya, there were numerous pre-Vatican II trained and ordained priests that were part of it, along with numerous, probably thousands, in the early years, of very serious lay Catholics. Hundreds of these men even agreed to be ordained as priests and then consecrated as bishops, many of which happened the same day, and with no training, and there is no doubt that what started with very serious Catholics resisting the novelties of Vatican II ended up becoming a new sect unto themselves. Here is some reading in Palma de Troya for you or those interested: Worldwide photos of chapels of the Palma sect, & Photos or the Palmerian Basilica: HERE
Detailed book that covers the history and development of the sect: HERE
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Sept 21, 2023 15:35:45 GMT -5
Pacelli,
I agree with everything you wrote above. I was speaking hypothetically. Your comments in No. 3 would probably come true. I am not advocating the hypothetical scenario which probably would have worked in the case of Campos back in the early 90s. Today, practically speaking it would create another schism. Sorry for not being more articulate and leaving a disclaimer.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 21, 2023 15:59:50 GMT -5
Pacelli, I agree with everything you wrote above. I was speaking hypothetically. Your comments in No. 3 would probably come true. I am not advocating the hypothetical scenario which probably would have worked in the case of Campos back in the early 90s. Today, practically speaking it would create another schism. Sorry for not being more articulate and leaving a disclaimer. It's no problem, Wenceslav, I was actually typing that and did not see your post until after. I agree with you that this scenario probably would have worked in Campos. I think that what you wrote and what I wrote do not in any way conflict. Bishop de Castro Mayer was a successor of the Apostles, and as such, if he told his priests to elect his successor, and if they did, it very well may have been a legitimate act, at least there is a good argument for it. The diocese would have had an empty see upon his death, with an undeclared antipope in Rome, and if the clergy elected and submitted to the new bishop, then it would have been in line with a previous practice, and at least it's a reasonable argument as to being a lawful act. Perhaps, though, the reason why the good bishop did not take this action was that he wasn't convinced of it. It's hard to say, but either way that ship has sailed.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Sept 21, 2023 17:49:50 GMT -5
It is very frustrating that we do not seem to be able to do anything to get out of this crisis. Nevertheless, I shall continue my research about the legitimacy of such actions and begin researching the 380 Eastern rite bishops in order to determine their orthodoxy. Perhaps something may present itself.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 22, 2023 13:28:52 GMT -5
It is very frustrating that we do not seem to be able to do anything to get out of this crisis. Nevertheless, I shall continue my research about the legitimacy of such actions and begin researching the 380 Eastern rite bishops in order to determine their orthodoxy. Perhaps something may present itself. Hello marcellusfaber , I will give you my take for what it's worth. I used to think the way you are describing in your post years ago, but with much prayer and reflection on this over the years, I no longer think this way and I will explain why. I think much of the Traditionalist writing on the crisis sets a certain narrative in our minds, making it seem like the enemies of the Church won the day, the Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, etc., and they, in so far as they have attacked or worked against the Church are certainly culpable, but they haven't won anything. Our Lord Jesus Christ is ruler of His Church, and the Church is indestructible, and at every stage of this crisis, beginning, middle and whenever it ends, it is He who is in control, not His enemies. All who have left the Church or have allowed themselves to be duped may be less culpable, due to the failure of the Shepherds, but each and every person that has abandoned the Church or lost the Faith made their own individual decision, and they have failed Our Lord, and the Church will go on with them. He is clearly permitting all of this, every single action against His Church, in the same manner that He allowed those who persecuted Him while on earth, to arrest Him, brutally scourge Him and put Him to death using an extremely violent and painful method. We may ask, why didn't Our Lord prevent this crisis or intervene to fix this? It seems clear from the fact that He is permitting all of this, that is because it serves a greater end, which has yet to reveal itself, similar to what He went through while on earth. I think we should as Catholics be very cautious about taking any actions, or follow others that take such actions, that we do not have certainty that Our Lord wills to be taken. We must use much discernment and be certain that it is He who is leading us, and not misguided zeal. When St. Peter defended Our Lord from those arresting Him, Our Lord corrected Him, and even healed the man who St. Peter cut the ear off, and similarly if He wanted this crisis over, it would have been over, or could be over at any time He chooses in the future. Our Lord didnt need St. Peter's sword, if He wanted things stopped, all of the men arresting Him, could have never even touched Him. He could fix things in His Church in one second, if He chooses to, and do a far better job than us. Our Lord left us with the Apostles and their successors to rule his Church, and they have failed to stop this crisis. If the crisis is to be ended, somehow and someway, it will have to be them to do it, unless of course Our Lord intervenes in some other way, that may surprise all of us, but it must be done in accord with His Plan, and rash actions taken by any of us that are not in line with His plan will not be blessed and will more than certainly make things worse. I think the things that we can do now that are very important in our times, in order for us to continue to be pleasing to Our Lord that are in a sense small but at the same time powerful are: 1. Defend the Faith, and with that learn one's Faith better to defend it. 2. Expose the wolves. 3. Warn unsuspecting Catholics to flee from the wolves. 4. Pray the rosary more frequently, even 15 decades a day or more. 5. Pray other prayers more frequently. 6. Consider even praying some or all of the Divine Office either daily or at least on some days that you have more time. 7. Fast more frequently (in accord with not harming our health or interfering with our duties) and do more than the Church obliges us. Also, do other penances using the same guidelines. 8. Get to Mass more frequently if possible. 9. Always remain in the state of grace. 10. Try to perfect ourselves by correcting our faults, and identifying obstacles to our spiritual growth in order to overcome them. 11. Use extreme caution as to ideas being put forth on all sides that may lead you astray, test everything, as the Shepherd's are either not there to do it right now, or in places where they are, they are not doing it well. I think these actions of growing spiritually, making ourselves pleasing to Our Lord, growing closer to Him, doing His Will on earth to the best of our knowledge and careful discernment, living our ordinary daily duties, and lastly guarding ourselves from being deceived, are what we need to focus on, and leave the big matters to Our Lord, the Head of the Church, unless He clearly and certainly calls you to do so.
|
|