|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 25, 2017 19:39:58 GMT -5
I was only talking about bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you retracting what you said earlier? Do you, or do you not, agree 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 your first question, no retraction. Why would I need to retract, do you think you are seeing a change in what I have said? If so, explain. Yes, to your second question.
|
|
|
Post by Mysterium Fidei on Jun 26, 2017 9:57:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you retracting what you said earlier? Do you, or do you not, agree 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 your first question, no retraction. Why would I need to retract, do you think you are seeing a change in what I have said? If so, explain. Yes, to your second question. I'm sorry for belaboring this point. I am just trying to get a clear understanding of what your position is. Do bishops who have been "sent", or installed, in their positions by an anti-pope, (and are presumably operating under supplied jurisdiction), truly have a "mission", and are they properly part of the hierarchy, in that through them the apostolicity and visibility of the Church is preserved? Thank you.
|
|
myrnam
Junior Member
100th Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by myrnam on Jun 26, 2017 10:25:31 GMT -5
This in only my opinion and I will admit I am very unschooled with theological details. However, isn't it true that God can and will make exceptions to His own rule for the sake of the, in this case, His Church.
Our Lady, when created by God, is the biggest exception, because of her role as the Mother Incarnate. Not only was she conceived without sin, but she was Assumed into Heaven Body and Soul. Also God make an exception when He put her above all the angels because it was the right, perfect place for her, His Masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2017 11:08:41 GMT -5
To your first question, no retraction. Why would I need to retract, do you think you are seeing a change in what I have said? If so, explain. Yes, to your second question. I'm sorry for belaboring this point. I am just trying to get a clear understanding of what your position is. Do bishops who have been "sent", or installed, in their positions by an anti-pope, (and are presumably operating under supplied jurisdiction), truly have a "mission", and are they properly part of the hierarchy, in that through them the apostolicity and visibility of the Church is preserved? Thank you. No one operates under supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction terminates with each act. The antipope cannot appoint anyone, when he does appoint, he is usurping a power he does not have. The act, however, if it is for the common good, and there is a common error about his status, which there is, could the attract juridisction from the Church. If the Church supplies for the appointment of bishop X of diocese Y, then that bishop becomes the local ordinary who then has habitual (not supplied) jurisdiction over his diocese. The Church can supply for any act, in this case even the appointment of bishops, so long as the conditions are met.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2017 11:11:01 GMT -5
This in only my opinion and I will admit I am very unschooled with theological details. However, isn't it true that God can and will make exceptions to His own rule for the sake of the, in this case, His Church. Our Lady, when created by God, is the biggest exception, because of her role as the Mother Incarnate. Not only was she conceived without sin, but she was Assumed into Heaven Body and Soul. Also God make an exception when He put her above all the angels because it was the right, perfect place for her, His Masterpiece. God may solve this crisis in some amazing way, that will not be what we expect. But, what cannot happen, otherwise the Church defects, is for the entire body of bishops who make up the hierarchy, (those with ordinary jurisdiction) to cease to exist.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 7:53:39 GMT -5
Remember, supplied jurisdiction is not a different type of jurisdiction; it is ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary manner. Supplied jurisdiction is distinguished from habitual jurisdiction, not from ordinary ordinary jurisdiction. When ordinary jurisdiction is bestowed, it is bestowed ordinarily, internally, and habitually--that is, bestowed directly or indirectly upon the recipient; when ordinary jurisdiction is supplied, it is provided extraordinarily and externally--that is, applied directly or indirectly by the Church to the external forum of the cleric for the sake of the act itself. With ordinary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction continues in the internal forum of the exerciser even after termination of the act. With supplied jurisdiction, the jurisdiction immediately ceases upon completion of the act.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 8:14:10 GMT -5
From what I understand of the Church's commissioned theologians, habitual jurisdiction can be granted either directly or indirectly by the pope. It is granted directly when the pope personally appoints a bishop to succeed this or that bishop or fill this or that see; it is granted indirectly when these vacancies are filled by local or cultural custom, tradition, or practice, as (from what I have read) occurred in various places in the early Church where the process of personal appointment by the pope would have been impractically long. An example would be the clergy of a particular region electing their own bishop to fill a vacancy, which appointment would be eventually ratified by the pope.
Assuming that I am correct in my understanding of the Church's jurisdictional history, these bishops' appointments with the implied consent of the pope means that direct appointment by the explicit consent of the pope means that this latter is not strictly a matter of divine law, or these appointments would never have been retroactively ratified. The Mark of Apostolicity then would seem to endure even in the absence of direct appointment and in the mere presence of indirect appointment implicitly approved by the Holy See, provided the laws, customs, and disciplines of the Church are respected.
That said, Ad Apostolorum Principis, which was added to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, prohibited by means of positive law the appointment of a bishop without a papal mandate (in other words, without direct appointment from the pope). But the fact that this legislation even exists and was made a matter of ecclesiastical law (the violation of which was punishable with the most severe form of automatic excommunication reserved specially to the Holy See) further proves that the Apostolicity of the Church endures by means of indirect appointment, for did it not, then AAP would not have applied a canonical penalty to the crime but would have simply declared such appointments as invalid and contrary to divine law.
While at first glance this interesting piece of ecclesiastical legislation might appear to preclude the possibility of traditional bishops possessing ordinary jurisdiction, we must keep in mind that the legal principle of epikeia intervenes in the case where ecclesiastical law would contradict or interfere with the fulfilment of divine law. In a case such as this, the ecclesiastical law would cease to bind and would make way for the fulfilment of the higher divine law to which ecclesiastical law is subordinated and for which ecclesiastical law exists. Hence, traditional bishops may in fact possess ordinary, habitual jurisdiction per divine law by means of indirect appointment by the Holy See, implicitly recognizing the local appointments of the traditional movement by a directly appointed bishop, or perhaps even by a clerical council or an election by the faithful.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 27, 2017 8:32:06 GMT -5
Remember, supplied jurisdiction is not a different type of jurisdiction; it is ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary manner. Supplied jurisdiction is distinguished from habitual jurisdiction, not from ordinary ordinary jurisdiction. When ordinary jurisdiction is bestowed, it is bestowed ordinarily, internally, and habitually--that is, bestowed directly or indirectly upon the recipient; when ordinary jurisdiction is supplied, it is provided extraordinarily and externally--that is, applied directly or indirectly by the Church to the external forum of the cleric for the sake of the act itself. With ordinary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction continues in the internal forum of the exerciser even after termination of the act. With supplied jurisdiction, the jurisdiction immediately ceases upon completion of the act. Ok I have to get off the merry go round now...my vertigos kicking in lol.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 24, 2017 11:23:51 GMT -5
Someone brought to my attention a criticism of my post in using the term, "Church" in reference to the hierarchy. I didn't really think it necessary to write a long post on where the laity are during this crisis, as that is not really a hard task, so I focused on the hierarchy, as that is what Catholics are struggling with.
The term "Church" can be applied to just the hierarchy and that is the sense I was using in the above post.
The Roman Catechism teaches:
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2017 17:27:05 GMT -5
Remember, supplied jurisdiction is not a different type of jurisdiction; it is ordinary jurisdiction supplied in an extraordinary manner. Supplied jurisdiction is distinguished from habitual jurisdiction, not from ordinary ordinary jurisdiction. When ordinary jurisdiction is bestowed, it is bestowed ordinarily, internally, and habitually--that is, bestowed directly or indirectly upon the recipient; when ordinary jurisdiction is supplied, it is provided extraordinarily and externally--that is, applied directly or indirectly by the Church to the external forum of the cleric for the sake of the act itself. With ordinary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction continues in the internal forum of the exerciser even after termination of the act. With supplied jurisdiction, the jurisdiction immediately ceases upon completion of the act. Ok I have to get off the merry go round now...my vertigos kicking in lol. INPEFESS...this was a joke pointing out MY inabilities due to ignorance..not anything to do with the soundness of your points.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 13:22:10 GMT -5
Ok I have to get off the merry go round now...my vertigos kicking in lol. INPEFESS...this was a joke pointing out MY inabilities due to ignorance..not anything to do with the soundness of your points. I know you well enough to know you wouldn't mock your posters here that way, so I figured as much. Is there any point you would like me to clarify? After re-reading it, it is a bit convoluted.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 29, 2017 18:33:50 GMT -5
Its just some of this stuff blows way past my peasent Catholic intellect. If you read it out loud it is kind of funny.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 13:22:14 GMT -5
Its just some of this stuff blows way past my peasent Catholic intellect. If you read it out loud it is kind of funny. Sure. That is because I am using specific theological terminology used by the Church. In simpler terms, theologians have always taught that true apostolic succession requires both valid orders and legitimate jurisdiction. This means one must possess both the power of the office and the permission from the Church to use it. Sedeplenists argue that traditional clergy not in communion with Rome lack permission, since only the pope may give that permission. But that has not always been historically the case. First, as I understand it, the early Church allowed consecrations to the episcopacy and appointments to a see sometimes by local custom, without the direct approval of the pope. The pope may ratify these appointments after the fact, but the actions of the bishops were still valid and legitimate prior to these ratifications. This means that ordinary jurisdiction was given by the Church through the office of St. Peter indirectly (as opposed to directly from the occupant of the office) for the good of the Church. Given that the Church herself granted this jurisdiction apart from the specific act of an individual, this is a matter of divine law, not human law. Second, a piece of ecclesiastical legislation (distinct from divine law) from the mid-20th century called Ad Apostolorum Principis codified a human law that prohibited bishops from consecrating any bishops without explicit permission from Rome, a permission known as a canonical appointment to a vacant see (due to an abuse of consecrations that were taking place in China). But the fact that this was a matter of human law only indicates that the former practice (without Rome's permission) prior to this legislation was a matter of divine law, and not human law. If it were divine law, then the Church could never have allowed it to occur at all and could never have ratified those appointments. That said, human law only has authority by virtue of God giving the Church's offices the power to bind and loose. But this power is only given for the purpose of upholding divine law. Human law that interferes with the fulfilment of divine law deviates from its very purpose and therefore has no authority. It doesn't change the law or even violate; it simply ceases to be given any authority by God in this or that case where, if it did, it would interfere with divine law. This ancient legal principle, known as Epikiea, is what allows traditional bishops to consecrate bishops without direct permission from an individual prelate and therefore without incuring the canonical penalties attached to the prohibition if and only if it is done for the purpose of the fulfilment of divine law (the continuity of the Church) and the laws of the Church are not broken with regard to these consecrations.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 29, 2017 21:32:29 GMT -5
I actually understood that...lol
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Sept 30, 2017 8:12:26 GMT -5
I actually understood that...lol I hear ya! It takes me a long time and many readings to percolate through my dense mass of stupid at times 😀.
|
|