Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 17:50:32 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. I would like to respond to an objection made to this post by a forum member from another forum. He took issue with my explanation by implying that if what I said was true, then I was claiming that epikeia changes Church law, which it certainly can't do. This is certainly a misunderstanding of the nature's of divine and positive law. The objection is not at all implied by what I said. Let me be clear: divine law gives man the right to make his own laws (positive law) only in accordance with the divine law from which positive law has any power at all. Remember, positive law only exists for the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of divine law. Hence, if ever there were a case in which the application of positive law did not fulfill divine law or, even worse, contradicted it or prevented divine law from being fulfilled, then it is inconceivable that it binds in such a case. This is what all the theologians have said on the topic. Put another way, positive law has no binding power in cases where its application to this or that case would itself violate the very divine law by which that positive law would have received its force. The principle of epikeia, therefore, doesn't change the divine law or the positive law at all; it simply acknowledges the positive law's lack of application to this or that case only where it does in fact contradict the divine law by which that positive law has any force at all. In this case, divine law wills the pristine continuity of the true Catholic Faith. A positive law that would prevent even the possibility of that from happening would be contrary to divine law. The positive law thus couldn't bind in a case where the pristine continuity of the Faith was in fact the very substance of the act for which a violation of that positive law could be alleged. Far from changing that law, then, it simply says that if this human law were to be applied to this particular case, it would in fact (1) violate the very purpose for its existence in the first place, so it could not bind; violate divine law, which is the very source of its own power in the first place; and (3) have no power to apply to this case, since divine law as its source couldn't give it power to undo itself. God can't set His will against itself, so it is inconceivable that God would give God's Church a power to make laws only for the purpose of fulfilling His own laws, which former would undo God's power as the very source of that law. A kingdom divided against itself can't stand...
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 17, 2018 7:48:40 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
In order for one to possess ordinary jurisdiction, one must have a legitimate claim to an office in which to rule over Catholics. While the concept of an indirect or tacit appointment by the Pope is a valid concept, it does not apply to traditional bishops.
Here are some things to think about:
1. Traditional bishops do not claim any office, therefore they are not claiming the right to rule.
2. Even the outliers who have claimed an office, such as Musey and Vezelis, have never demonstrated the truth of their claims.
3. This also ignores the question of whether private individuals can establish new offices in the Church which never existed. All traditional bishops, including Musey and Vezelis, never claimed an existing office of the the Church. Musey and Vezelis created their own new office which they claim jurisdiction was attached to this new office.
4. Implicit appointments of the Pope must be justified by the tacit will of the Pope, and the Popes have shown their will on how sees are filled. The Church is broken down into territories called dioceses, and each has its own bishop. The Pope appoints bishops to rule over those dioceses. In a long term interregnum, it is reasonable to conclude that the will of the last pope was that Catholics would not be left without local bishops, so it could be argued that the sees could be filled by neighboring bishops as was done formerly in the Church.
I will reiterate here, that traditional bishops have never claimed a diocesan see. If one ever does so, then he must be able to justify his claim, otherwise he is a usurper.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2018 11:15:53 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: In order for one to possess ordinary jurisdiction, one must have a legitimate claim to an office in which to rule over Catholics. While the concept of an indirect or tacit appointment by the Pope is a valid concept, it does not apply to traditional bishops. Here are some things to think about: 1. Traditional bishops do not claim any office, therefore they are not claiming the right to rule. 2. Even the outliers who have claimed an office, such as Musey and Vezelis, have never demonstrated the truth of their claims. 3. This also ignores the question of whether private individuals can establish new offices in the Church which never existed. All traditional bishops, including Musey and Vezelis, never claimed an existing office of the the Church. Musey and Vezelis created their own new office which they claim jurisdiction was attached to this new office. 4. Implicit appointments of the Pope must be justified by the tacit will of the Pope, and the Popes have shown their will on how sees are filled. The Church is broken down into territories called dioceses, and each has its own bishop. The Pope appoints bishops to rule over those dioceses. In a long term interregnum, it is reasonable to conclude that the will of the last pope was that Catholics would not be left without local bishops, so it could be argued that the sees could be filled by neighboring bishops as was done formerly in the Church. I will reiterate here, that traditional bishops have never claimed a diocesan see. If one ever does so, then he must be able to justify his claim, otherwise he is a usurper. These two premises are a huge conundrum and shows the horrificness of the crisis. When St. Anthanasius and Eusebius were trying to restore the sees could you not say that the consecrated bishops were in "limbo" or "without see or diocese" or "sacramental bishops" until as such time as the pope ratified the replacements"? The necessity of having CATHOLIC bishops was more compelling then the Arians who possessed the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the argument can be made that some of the current bishops are WORSE than Arians. Could the traditional bishops who are just keeping the faith and "waiting" for the ship to be righted and heresy, jurisdiction, schism and apostacy be ironed out? No doubt an extremely unorthodox situation in both cases, but done out of Divine law trumping ecclesiastical law. This is why once again the East is still set up to avoid this problem if only the bishops would wake up.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 17, 2018 14:49:57 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: In order for one to possess ordinary jurisdiction, one must have a legitimate claim to an office in which to rule over Catholics. While the concept of an indirect or tacit appointment by the Pope is a valid concept, it does not apply to traditional bishops. Here are some things to think about: 1. Traditional bishops do not claim any office, therefore they are not claiming the right to rule. 2. Even the outliers who have claimed an office, such as Musey and Vezelis, have never demonstrated the truth of their claims. 3. This also ignores the question of whether private individuals can establish new offices in the Church which never existed. All traditional bishops, including Musey and Vezelis, never claimed an existing office of the the Church. Musey and Vezelis created their own new office which they claim jurisdiction was attached to this new office. 4. Implicit appointments of the Pope must be justified by the tacit will of the Pope, and the Popes have shown their will on how sees are filled. The Church is broken down into territories called dioceses, and each has its own bishop. The Pope appoints bishops to rule over those dioceses. In a long term interregnum, it is reasonable to conclude that the will of the last pope was that Catholics would not be left without local bishops, so it could be argued that the sees could be filled by neighboring bishops as was done formerly in the Church. I will reiterate here, that traditional bishops have never claimed a diocesan see. If one ever does so, then he must be able to justify his claim, otherwise he is a usurper. These two premises are a huge conundrum and shows the horrificness of the crisis. When St. Anthanasius and Eusebius were trying to restore the sees could you not say that the consecrated bishops were in "limbo" or "without see or diocese" or "sacramental bishops" until as such time as the pope ratified the replacements"? The necessity of having CATHOLIC bishops was more compelling then the Arians who possessed the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the argument can be made that some of the current bishops are WORSE than Arians. Could the traditional bishops who are just keeping the faith and "waiting" for the ship to be righted and heresy, jurisdiction, schism and apostacy be ironed out? No doubt an extremely unorthodox situation in both cases, but done out of Divine law trumping ecclesiastical law. This is why once again the East is still set up to avoid this problem if only the bishops would wake up. Andrew, The actions of St. Athanasius were not identical to the actions of the modern day traditional bishops. In the case of St. Athanasius, he consecrated bishops for existing sees, as well as priests for existing sees. Therefore, the bishops in question had an office, they were part of the divinely established Constitutional structure of the Church. The justification that St. Athanasius had was that heretics had overrun the sees in question, and as he was a true bishop, he consecrated bishops to the vacant sees. In such a case, as the Pope’s power was impeded, due to the actions of the emperor, the will of the Pope can be implied. A aimilar situation occurred in the Middle Ages, in which there was a long term interregnum between popes, and local bishops filled neighboring sees during the interrgnum. No sanction or correction was given to the bishops for their actions. Your last sentence sums up my view exactly, the eastern rite bishops who have kept the Faith continue to have and pass on the apostolic succession. The Church continues in those parishes with the divine worship regulated by the true pastors of the Church who have the apostolic succession. This is from the Baltimore Catechism, 1891:
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jan 17, 2018 15:09:31 GMT -5
Pacelli, Given the unique situation with the traditionalist bishops, I will agree with you that they do not make claims to established offices.
I do not think they necesarily need to make a claim because most laymen are ignorant about the way the Church operates with regards to such, so that it doesn't matter to the average layman. All that matters is the word "Bishop" and with such use, most will ask no more questions. This is why traditionalist bishops do not need to try to make a claim to office or elect a pope. Those within their sphere of influence will do anything asked of them. They already have obedience and the financial support that would rightly belong to the Church. They do not need to take anything a step further.
Now, I know that each traditionalist bishop might view his position in a slightly different way, or have a particular idea about his role in the crisis or waiting it out. The reality is that their very existence does somewhat create a new pseudo-see, whether intentional or unintentional, because their word and works are pretty much law amongst their followers.
Name anyone invested in the traditionalist movement who would publicly do anything opposite to the will of a traditionalist bishop. Ask what happens if one challenges their written works.
I know you did not ask this, but it demonstrates why the resolution to the Crisis will not come through the structures of traditionalism on a practical level. (If one would ignore the facts that they cannot elect and are not members of the hierarchy anyway!)
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:26:02 GMT -5
Where is the Catholic Church today (2017)13. With this said, I am not going to pretend that all is fine in the east. They believe that the antipopes since Vatican II have been legitimate, this fact alone places them in great danger. 14. It is a fact, as noted above that sectarians ideas and practices are breaking in, that the eastern rites although existing to some extent in a bubble, are not completely secure, as their recognition of the antipope opens them up to extreme danger. 15. The eastern Catholics, in my opinion, are the last remaining authorized place where the successors of the apostles rule, the clerics who are actually running parishes have a commission, and the parishes and priests have canonical standing. 16. The eastern Catholics are under attack, the fortress is holding, but it is weak, their outer walls have been broken, and they are barely holding on from being absorbed by the sect. Enemies have entered, and are wreaking havoc. Pacelli, For now I will only take up the points you referenced for the Eastern Rites. I think leading up to point 13 I would agree with just about everything you said, probably saying it just as you said it. I am afraid, however, as I have really begun to read and research what is truly meant and promulgated by Rome regarding the primacy of the see of Peter is ultimately what makes points 13 and 14 especially so damning to the Eastern Rites. I recently spoke with one of my deacons who stated he heard the bishop or someone higher up in our metropolitan say, "We are orthodox." He may have said, "We are Orthodox." Because I was not there, I do not know in what context he meant it. However, neither did my deacon and he was quite shocked at the statement too. I think the Eastern Rites are in the most precarious spot of everyone. To recognize Francis as Pope is to be conciliar, post-modern modernist Vatican II heretics. To deny Francis is to return to schismatic status. I think this is the dichotomy for much of the east. What to choose? Because none have come out and taken on the sedevacantist position, I think some have recognized the Vatican II heresies and would rather be, "Orthodox" as in "Eastern Orthodox" than to follow the conciliar sect. However, are all things as pristine in the East as you've presented here and as I've been arguing for a few years now? This is my concern. I have this concern because we offer our mass/liturgy in communion (una cum) with a man who recently said he goes to the Witch (whether he was being sarcastic or not); has stated he doesn't believe there is a Catholic God; canonized a previous Pope who committed all kinds of heresies with his Assisi prayer meetings and as you know the list can go on. Can I continue offering the mass with such a one? Can you? Can we? Can our Priests? I asked my priest what we were going to do about Amoris Laetitia? I asked if he'd give communion to the divorced and remarried or do as Francis said. He said there would be no communion for the divorced and remarried. Francis seems to say there will. See, for me, this is the dilemma? Is my priest a sedevacantist and he doesn't want to tell anyone and he is in the hierarchy and he is obedient to those who also don't want to say Francis is not the Pope? Are they just willing to slide back closer to "orthodoxy" and would rather fall back to their previous state? Francis has been so overt, I don't think it can be ignored any longer? Can one withhold consent when the priest says in the liturgy, "Blessed Francis Pope of Rome?" Are we allowed to. This is a serious crisis as you've stated. To each church John wrote in the Apocalypse they were commended for overcoming. Will our leaders decide enough is a enough and lead us to overcome. Can they continue to recognize the conciliar sect and their popes and think that because we are following those who still have a "true line" will not question it and we are safe in the harbor of the East? So then I conclude with your point 14, yes the sectarians are breaking in and the "bubble" is not safe. There is no way we could exist in one and in fact the conciliar sect has drawn the line and basically they will tell us we are in or we are out.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 20, 2018 0:31:23 GMT -5
A wicked man breaks into a home... kills the parents of a very young child. The child grows thinking this man his father. When in due course...till the age of reason...he is shown the truth. Then he may safely reject the man he once called father.For till then it is written thou shalt honor thy father. Moses considered wicked Pharoe his father...till God intervened. I rest on one thing. My childlike trust that God and only God will fix this. That God will not condemn His sheep because of the wicked actions of the Shepherds. Till God intervenes I will simply ignore the drunken hirelings...I will cling to my personal birthrite...embrace any and all unsullied valid and licit (as far as I the laity can descern it) Sacraments I can garner. And continue on till Im left only holding a single musterd seed if needs be. "Martha Martha...you worry yourself over many things....but it is Mary who has chosen the better" (paraphrase) Fear is useless my brothers.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 20, 2018 1:06:32 GMT -5
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. Pope Leo 13th.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 4:12:17 GMT -5
Pacelli, I am curious: What sort of jurisdiction (if any) do you propose that traditional bishops in the Roman Rite possess? Please explain how they have whatever jurisdiction you believe they have; and if you cite Miaskiewicz, please explain how "common error" applies in this case. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 20, 2018 10:49:48 GMT -5
Pacelli, I am curious: What sort of jurisdiction (if any) do you propose that traditional bishops in the Roman Rite possess? Please explain how they have whatever jurisdiction you believe they have; and if you cite Miaskiewicz, please explain how "common error" applies in this case. Thanks! The traditional bishops do not possess any habitual jurisdiction. Any act requiring jurisdiction, if it is supplied must meet the specific conditions. I do not believe common error applies to traditionalist bishops and priests as they are known to not be the legitimate bishops and priests of the Catholic Church. There is no error regarding their status except among those completely ignorant of how the Church functions. But, even among those ignorant Catholics, most still know that these traditionalists are not part of their diocese or an approved religious order, so any ignorance seems to me to be a based on a delusion of who these priests are, rather than common error. All priests have jurisdiction to absolve in the danger of death. It is a debatable point as to whether this danger applies broadly to all Catholics in our situation. Personally, I do not confess to traditionalists and go only to old Roman rite (pre- June 1968) or eastern rite priests who certainly have the jurisdiction to hear confessions. Fwiw, I know you did not ask this, but I will elaborate. I believe the entire traditionalist structure is a novelty, a mistake, however well meaning it was. The idea that bishops could be consecrated and priests ordained without lawful training or an office in the Church, sent by one with no right to send, to minister to Catholics all around the world on their own, answerable to no lawful authority is a novelty and is dangerous and I do not believe that a Pope would ever permit it, even in an emergency. In my opinion, the laws governing the consecration of bishops and the ordination of priests still stands, and must be obeyed, and all of the consecration and ordinations of the traditionalists are illicit. These bishops and priests have no status in the Church despite their holy orders and are equivalent to laymen. The only lawful use of their holy orders comes from the request of laity, as explained by canons 2261 and 2284. I believe it is an abuse for any of them to go beyond what these canons permit.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 20, 2018 11:28:30 GMT -5
Vinnyzee wrote:I agree with your concerns about the eastern rite hierarchies, but, it is important to not make conclusions beyond what is warranted. So long as the eastern rite bishop or priest personally keeps the true Faith, and does not defect into heresy, even if they are maintaining that the heretic Francis is Pope, they remain members of the Church and keep their offices in the Church. If they are confused about what is going on or what to do, that is unfortunate, but it does not affect their status as a Catholic. If some do fully realize the awful truth about the post-Vatican II heretics and remain silent, just going along to get along, that is also deplorable, cowardly, and censurable, but it does not cause the immediate loss of office. I would even go so far as to say that even if these bishops and priests do things which would cause a suspicion of heresy, i.e. interfaith prayer, etc., that is still not enough to conclude that they are heretics and have lost their office. Only public defection from the Faith by pertinacioulsy professing heresy, or joining a non-Catholic sect, (there’s no need to get into schism and apostasy at this point) breaks one from the membership in the Church, and by that leads to an automatic loss of office. Vinnyzee wrote:I have said their liturgies are pristine, the liturgies and sacramental rites of the east have remained essentially untouched. They remain, despite some minor unfortunate innovations, intact, valid, and an incentive to piety. With that said, I will reiterate, so long as the eastern rite Catholics continue to recognize the claim of the antipopes, they remain in grave danger. I am not minimizing the gravity of your concerns, and I agree with them. Vinnyzee wrote:Yes, it is a dilemma for those who believe in Francis’ claim, but still believe the Catholic Faith. It leads to a constant conflict between Faith and obedience. But, as I said above, dealing with the matter of what constitutes membership in the Church, and how it is lost, that is what must be looked at, and we must not be sidetracked. Despite the serious problems you mentioned, the priest in question retains his office so long as he does not publicly defect into heresy, The fact that he must do logical leaps, or perhaps have a lack of logic, in how he deals with these unresolvable inconsistencies does not cause him to become a non-Catholic or lose his office in the Church. The mistake of the priest on the status of the antipope, is not your mistake. I would urge you to read the references in the “una cum” section in the library. Regarding point 14, yes, the eastern wall has been breached, and you are not perfectly safe in their churches, you must never let your guard down. If you find a priest with the Faith, you are blessed, but you cannot automatically conclude that all eastern Catholics priests still have the Faith. You are also not fully safe in the ungoverned traditionalist chapels. These chapels operate independently of ecclesiastical authority, and it goes without saying that this poses a danger to Catholics who go to them. They are leaderless, yet the traditional bishops and priests do in practice lead, not with true authority, but with a perceived authority. In our current dilemma, at least with regards to the eastern rites, I urge every Catholic to take them on a case by case basis. I put this DISCLAIMER up at the top of every eastern rite directory I posted in the resource section. The advice I put up there is what I believe is the best way to safely balance our need for the sacraments with protecting one’s Faith.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 14:44:27 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: In order for one to possess ordinary jurisdiction, one must have a legitimate claim to an office in which to rule over Catholics. While the concept of an indirect or tacit appointment by the Pope is a valid concept, it does not apply to traditional bishops. Here are some things to think about: 1. Traditional bishops do not claim any office, therefore they are not claiming the right to rule. 2. Even the outliers who have claimed an office, such as Musey and Vezelis, have never demonstrated the truth of their claims. 3. This also ignores the question of whether private individuals can establish new offices in the Church which never existed. All traditional bishops, including Musey and Vezelis, never claimed an existing office of the the Church. Musey and Vezelis created their own new office which they claim jurisdiction was attached to this new office. 4. Implicit appointments of the Pope must be justified by the tacit will of the Pope, and the Popes have shown their will on how sees are filled. The Church is broken down into territories called dioceses, and each has its own bishop. The Pope appoints bishops to rule over those dioceses. In a long term interregnum, it is reasonable to conclude that the will of the last pope was that Catholics would not be left without local bishops, so it could be argued that the sees could be filled by neighboring bishops as was done formerly in the Church. I will reiterate here, that traditional bishops have never claimed a diocesan see. If one ever does so, then he must be able to justify his claim, otherwise he is a usurper. These are certainly valid points to consider. However, while they do not currently claim any "right to rule," they do claim the right to shepherd, which is the very raison d'etre of sacerdotal orders. In my study of formal apostolic succession, I have never seen an explicit claim of a "right to rule" as a condition; the right is expressed via the actions of their sacerdotal functions performed within the scope of the Church's mission, authority, and implicit consent. It isn't as though they deny themselves even the right to administer the sacraments. They certainly claim the right to preside over the spiritual interests of their faithful, which is the very purpose of their office. On the other hand, I will grant you that traditional bishops in general do not claim the right to rule over their priests. That I can't deny. But let's say for sake of the argument this is necessary, since I can't rule out the possibility that I have overlooked something. Point number 2 from above appears tautological to me. You state they need to claim a right to rule, but when they do you say they haven't proved they have the right. The right to rule would come the points elaborated in my post to which you responded. Whether they claim that right or not wasn't to my point. My point was that it was possible nothing stood in the way of them claiming that right. After all, many of these traditional clergy were "sent" by those directly "sent" by indisputably valid popes. It just happens that these traditional bishops' being sent took place during the "reign" of dubious popes; but that is not by their fault, negligence, or misdeed. Elsewhere in the Church's history, being "sent" by one appointed directly by the pope was accepted, and theologians of well repute have referred to this as an indirect appointment, which is a valid means by which formal apostolic succession is continued. The bishop receiving this appointment fills the office of the bishop from whom he received his new appointment, local clergy elect the appointed bishop, or the faithful of the diocese elect him. This was considered to be the implicit will of the pope who sent the original bishop in the first place. Pope Pius XII referred to local appointments that customarily did not consult the Supreme Pontiff in Ad Apostolorum Principis. While divine law necessarily permits this (did it not, the Church could never have continued in countries and in generations where it would have been impossible to consult the Roman Pontiff to fill vacant sees), Pius XII explained the mind of the Church on this matter in Ad Apostolorum Principis, where he legislatively restricted this process only on account of abuses that were taking place in China. He points out very clearly that the purpose of this prohibitive piece of legislation was to address cases where "[ i ]t is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church's laws are being violated..." The good of the Church--of shepherds to preserve the flock--is what is the substance of the divine law necessarily allowing for indirect appointment. The legislation addressed the issue of the good of the Church not being taken into consideration. While this does not give any bishop a right to confer Orders for any reason, it certainly doesn't apply to those bishops who are laboring under a practical interregnum, who--like Pius XII said--are respecting the laws of the Church, and who are only conferring Orders for the preservation of the faithful. Regarding point number 3 from above, I'm not sure any new offices are being created. The office is being filled that the directly appointed bishop was appointed to fill. After all, it is not his fault he was removed from his see by Modernists. I don't think this is all opposed to the mind of the Church, especially if we read the cases explicated by Pius XII in China.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 21, 2018 12:37:51 GMT -5
I moved the posts dealing with whether there are large families in the eastern rites to its own dedicated thread linked HERE
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 21, 2018 13:13:22 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: I am not sure they claim a “right to shepherd.” Do you have any proof of this? The role of the shepherd in the Church is to teach, govern, and sanctify. To divorce shepherding the sheep from ruling over the sheep is not a valid concept, but if you wish to support it, I welcome your sources.
INPEFESS wrote:
In order for one to be a successor of the apostle one must have jurisdiction, the power to teach and govern. Orders do not give one any authority in the Church, and the person lacks any right or authorization to teach or govern.
This is from Van Noort:
INPEFESS wrote:
I would ask you to name the the office to which the traditional bishops are allegedly claiming which gives them the “right to preside over the spiritual interests of their faithful.” When did this office originate in the Church? Which Pope established it? What claim do any of these bishops have to this supposed office?
Since I already know the answers to the above questions, unless evidence can be shown that this office existed, I think it is safe to move on to the obvious: any office pretended by the traditionalist bishops is a made up office, it is not an office that exists in the Catholic Church. None of the traditional bishops claim any existing office in the Church, and that includes Vezelis and Musey who made up their own new office and filled it with themselves.
The traditional bishops and priests do not have any rights, their only authorization is to answer the request of the laity, which permits them to use their orders to respond to that request. Outside of the request of the laity, these men have absolutely no right to use the holy orders they have received. The Church has not given them this right.
More later...
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 13:43:16 GMT -5
I am not sure they claim a “right to shepherd.” Do you have any proof of this? The role of the shepherd in the Church is to teach, govern, and sanctify. To divorce shepherding the sheep from ruling over the sheep is not a valid concept, but if you wish to support it, I welcome your sources. You mean where in writing have they claimed it? They claim this right every time they actually shepherd the faithful. If you are looking for a formal declaration, perhaps see the last paragraph of the link in my signature. I'm not aware of any separate document required by a priest in which he declares he has a right to shepherd the flock. It is a divine right that he must accept as a condition of being ordained in the first place by an appointed bishop ordaining him for this very purpose. The right is only withheld if the ecclesiastical law that forbids this right--due to some impediment, delict, suspension, or divine law prohibition--applies. In the case of some traditional clergy, what prevents them from simply receiving the office given by the bishop who was directly appointed by the Holy See, without the existence of a doubtless pope to confirm that appointment? As I've said, from my understanding of antiquity, this is considered legitimate authorization by means of indirect appointment by one who was directly appointed. Ordinary jurisdiction is not withheld until the appointment is confirmed, or the fate of countless souls would be imperiled pending the notification of the Holy See, which could take hundreds of years, depending on the circumstances. As I understand it, the focus on "legitimate authority" refers to either the Holy See itself or the valid, licit, and appointed bishop providing for the filling of his office by another until that can be confirmed by the Holy See. This is different from a man approaching a schismatic, heretic, or apostate and then claiming to have a divine appointment by "legitimate authority." The schismatic, heretic, or apostate can't even indirectly appoint anyone since he has no "legitimate authority" to begin with, having been removed by the Holy See or divine law itself. Based on additional texts to the one you cited by Van Noort, this is how I have understood "legitimate authority" to mean. Yes, I am intimately familiar with this passage, as well as the fact that more than Orders is required for legitimate authority. Please see my comment above. From what I understand, formal apostolic succession--being "sent" by the Church--was passed on this way in some cases in the past. We are simply awaiting the certainly true authority to ratify these indirect appointments. The office held by the appointed bishop who consecrated them is the office that bishop would hold, if not immediately upon consecration, then upon the vacation of that office upon death of that directly appointed bishop. That office would be different for each bishop. Their claim to hold that office originates from the indirect appointment by the legitimate authority of one directly appointed by the Holy See to that very office. I know that is what you believe, and perhaps you are right. I am simply questioning that.
|
|