Are +Da Silva's Episcopal Consecrations Justified?
Nov 20, 2023 9:17:36 GMT -5
John Lewis likes this
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2023 9:17:36 GMT -5
I am starting a break off thread from the "sede war thread," linked HERE, to look specifically at the upcoming episcopal consecrations of Fr. Pierre Roy, and Fr. Fernanda Altamira, and whether they are justified according to the opinion of traditionalist theology that such consecrations are justified due to a state of necessity. I will further examine the arguments of those who are openly questioning the upcoming consecrations.
Before I begin, I am posting the letters of Bp. da Silva, dated October 14, and November 16th, 2023 explaining and justifying these upcoming episcopal consecrations:
Aside from the fact that any consecration done by any of the traditionalist bishops since this crisis began is only justified by opinions, and one cannot find any specific justification for these acts by opening up approved Catholic theology books and pointing to any justification, my post is not written to defend this act using Catholic theology, only to show that according to traditionalist theology of the state of necessity, these acts of Bp. da Silva are consistent and follow the tradition of every other justification for episcopal consecration done during this crisis.
According to traditionalist theology, these acts of consecrating bishops are justified, as the laity are suffering and are not able to obtain certainly valid sacraments, at least in the Roman rite, and therefore, in the judgment of a bishop, if he sees the necessity, may act by consecrating bishops to provide the sacraments, including ordaining new priests, for the lay people who are in need.
The key to all of this, is to grasp that none of these consecrations are approved by Rome, and none of them have any ordinary sanction of the Catholic Church, and all of them rely on the subjective judgment of the consecrating bishop that there is truly a state of necessity, and therefore he is justified in acting by consecrating new bishops to provide the sacraments for the laity as there is a grave need to do so.
Whether one's subjective judgment is correct or not is irrelevant as to the principle in all of this. All episcopal consecrations since this crisis began have relied on the subjective opinion of the consecrating bishop that there was a need due to the "state of necessity," and therefore this action was justified.
Bishop da Silva in his letters announcing the new episcopal consecrations follows this same procedure and explains his reasons using a state of necessity argument, which includes his own exhaustion at providing the sacraments in such a large area, and the risks of future world wide quarantines that may restrict him from traveling to Catholics for confirmations, blessing oils, and ordinations. He states that in his judgment these episcopal consecrations are prudent and needed.
According to traditionalist theology, this is all that is needed, and these acts are then justified. In my opinion, that should end this matter, according to the very standards used to justify every episcopal consecration done since the crisis began. But, some are openly questioning this. I have read one commentator question Bp. Da Silva's training. I would say in response to this that training and fitness of priests are judged by the ordaining bishops, and if traditionalist bishops are licitly ordaining, then it falls to his ordaining bishop to have made that judgment. I really don't see an argument here, unless this person wishes to dispute the foundational argument of whether traditionalist bishop are authorized to judge training and fitness in the first place.
Another more prominent person, Bp. Charles McGuire of St. Gertrude the Great chapel in Ohio wrote the following in regard to the upcoming consecrations:
I think his arguments should be looked at more closely:
1. He states he cannot "approve or consent" to these consecrations. He does not explain, however, why such approval or consent from him is needed in the first place. Is he asserting or implying that it is necessary for Bp. da Silva to obtain consent from him? If so, on what principle does he justify that idea? He doesn't explain. Also, why would Bp. da Silva have to approach him, and not the other traditionalist bishops?
2. He then rightly says that episcopal consecrations have grave implications on the Church and souls in time and in eternity, which is clear and obvious, and is a good reason and stand alone argument against any of the traditionalist consecrations to have taken place since this new practice began in the 70's and 80's.
3. He further states that "consultations must be had regarding its necessity and the suitability of these candidate." Since these consultations must be had, who must one consult with? Does one need to approach all traditionalist bishops on earth, some of them, or many of them? How does this fit with traditionalist theology and practice for the last 40 years or so that it is for the consecrating bishop to judge this for himself, and no consultations with others are necessary? Did Archbishop Thuc follow through with these required consultations? How about the hundreds of other bishops who consecrated others during this crisis? I am not aware of any evidence that any of them have followed through on these "necessary consultations."
4. His other argument against this in that he is not "consenting" to the consecrations is that he and the priests who work with him know little about the upcoming candidates for episcopal consecration. First off, why is his consent even a factor in any of this? Secondly, why is it important for one traditional bishop to know anything about the bishop-elects of another traditional bishop in the first place? Doesn't the crisis-theology put the judgment of fitness and character into the hands of each individual traditional bishop, or is some kind of authoritative body now necessary to apply to prior to consecrating new bishops? I have never once come across this argument used against any of the traditionalist bishops ever consecrated for the last 40 years. If one traditional bishop didn't know much about another traditional bishops upcoming episcopal consecration, why would that be a factor in anything at all?
How could even a rule be established that consultations are necessary when there is no law governing any of this in the first place, and the entire idea that episcopal consecrations during this crisis are all justified only by an opinion that it is justified in the first place, and there is no ruling authority to demand any requirements on the bishops to follow a consultation, or seek additional opinions on the fitness or character of candidates?
Before I begin, I am posting the letters of Bp. da Silva, dated October 14, and November 16th, 2023 explaining and justifying these upcoming episcopal consecrations:
Aside from the fact that any consecration done by any of the traditionalist bishops since this crisis began is only justified by opinions, and one cannot find any specific justification for these acts by opening up approved Catholic theology books and pointing to any justification, my post is not written to defend this act using Catholic theology, only to show that according to traditionalist theology of the state of necessity, these acts of Bp. da Silva are consistent and follow the tradition of every other justification for episcopal consecration done during this crisis.
According to traditionalist theology, these acts of consecrating bishops are justified, as the laity are suffering and are not able to obtain certainly valid sacraments, at least in the Roman rite, and therefore, in the judgment of a bishop, if he sees the necessity, may act by consecrating bishops to provide the sacraments, including ordaining new priests, for the lay people who are in need.
The key to all of this, is to grasp that none of these consecrations are approved by Rome, and none of them have any ordinary sanction of the Catholic Church, and all of them rely on the subjective judgment of the consecrating bishop that there is truly a state of necessity, and therefore he is justified in acting by consecrating new bishops to provide the sacraments for the laity as there is a grave need to do so.
Whether one's subjective judgment is correct or not is irrelevant as to the principle in all of this. All episcopal consecrations since this crisis began have relied on the subjective opinion of the consecrating bishop that there was a need due to the "state of necessity," and therefore this action was justified.
Bishop da Silva in his letters announcing the new episcopal consecrations follows this same procedure and explains his reasons using a state of necessity argument, which includes his own exhaustion at providing the sacraments in such a large area, and the risks of future world wide quarantines that may restrict him from traveling to Catholics for confirmations, blessing oils, and ordinations. He states that in his judgment these episcopal consecrations are prudent and needed.
According to traditionalist theology, this is all that is needed, and these acts are then justified. In my opinion, that should end this matter, according to the very standards used to justify every episcopal consecration done since the crisis began. But, some are openly questioning this. I have read one commentator question Bp. Da Silva's training. I would say in response to this that training and fitness of priests are judged by the ordaining bishops, and if traditionalist bishops are licitly ordaining, then it falls to his ordaining bishop to have made that judgment. I really don't see an argument here, unless this person wishes to dispute the foundational argument of whether traditionalist bishop are authorized to judge training and fitness in the first place.
Another more prominent person, Bp. Charles McGuire of St. Gertrude the Great chapel in Ohio wrote the following in regard to the upcoming consecrations:
I think his arguments should be looked at more closely:
1. He states he cannot "approve or consent" to these consecrations. He does not explain, however, why such approval or consent from him is needed in the first place. Is he asserting or implying that it is necessary for Bp. da Silva to obtain consent from him? If so, on what principle does he justify that idea? He doesn't explain. Also, why would Bp. da Silva have to approach him, and not the other traditionalist bishops?
2. He then rightly says that episcopal consecrations have grave implications on the Church and souls in time and in eternity, which is clear and obvious, and is a good reason and stand alone argument against any of the traditionalist consecrations to have taken place since this new practice began in the 70's and 80's.
3. He further states that "consultations must be had regarding its necessity and the suitability of these candidate." Since these consultations must be had, who must one consult with? Does one need to approach all traditionalist bishops on earth, some of them, or many of them? How does this fit with traditionalist theology and practice for the last 40 years or so that it is for the consecrating bishop to judge this for himself, and no consultations with others are necessary? Did Archbishop Thuc follow through with these required consultations? How about the hundreds of other bishops who consecrated others during this crisis? I am not aware of any evidence that any of them have followed through on these "necessary consultations."
4. His other argument against this in that he is not "consenting" to the consecrations is that he and the priests who work with him know little about the upcoming candidates for episcopal consecration. First off, why is his consent even a factor in any of this? Secondly, why is it important for one traditional bishop to know anything about the bishop-elects of another traditional bishop in the first place? Doesn't the crisis-theology put the judgment of fitness and character into the hands of each individual traditional bishop, or is some kind of authoritative body now necessary to apply to prior to consecrating new bishops? I have never once come across this argument used against any of the traditionalist bishops ever consecrated for the last 40 years. If one traditional bishop didn't know much about another traditional bishops upcoming episcopal consecration, why would that be a factor in anything at all?
How could even a rule be established that consultations are necessary when there is no law governing any of this in the first place, and the entire idea that episcopal consecrations during this crisis are all justified only by an opinion that it is justified in the first place, and there is no ruling authority to demand any requirements on the bishops to follow a consultation, or seek additional opinions on the fitness or character of candidates?