Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 14:38:05 GMT -5
Well, the entire crisis is a novelty, so we aren't going to find a precedented response for an unprecedented situation. We have never had a new religion and church claim to be the Catholic religion and Catholic Church and all but eclipse the true Faith and Church from ostensibly "within" the Church before, so to blame the traditional response for simply "carrying the baton" as the Church has always done isn't really fair. There aren't many other options. Sure, they are a plethora of abuses we could point to, but if we consider those who only approached legitimately appointed bishops in the Church who had left the Novus Ordo, then approaching them for the sacraments and only those Orders necessary for the shepherding of the faithful until this false church is exposed and destroyed, then I don't think it is nearly as erroneous as you imply. It may be a novelty of history, I am not sure I would say it is a novelty of principle. As St. Thomas writes, "necessity knows no law." It's not ideal, but the situation we're in isn't ideal. It is practically the absolute worst possible scenario. There isn't going to be a law for it. We are going to have to look to principle. If the Catholic Encyclopedia as recently as 100 years ago couldn't even come up with a solution to what should be done if ever a pope, as a private person, were to become a heretic or even insane, then surely the solution to an entire false religion and church eclipsing the true Church from powerful positions within the Church isn't something that is going to be procedurally clear-cut. There are no procedures, laws, or precedent, so all we can look to is principle as well as, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, 'history and right reason.'
Well, I am not sure I agree with your premise. It seems you are implying that, by divine law, only the pope's person can send, when, as far as I understand it, the jurisdiction flows from the pope's office through the occupant (if there is one), not the person simply. If the papacy is occupied, then only he can send by the power of his office. But if it is not occupied, the papacy can continue to send, provided it is done by the legitimate authority of one directly sent by the former pope. Thus, the authority and jurisdiction of the office continues to send even after the pope dies. This is the source of indirect appointment, provided the appointment comes from one who was personally sent by the pope. The directly appointed bishop indirectly appoints his successor, who is sent by the supreme jurisdiction conferred by the office of the papacy with the implicit will of the deceased pope, until such a time as the pope's successor ratifies that appointment. If the appointment is ratified, then we have absolute certainty of his continued habitual, ordinary jurisdiction. If the appointment is not ratified for this or that individual cleric, then that bishop's jurisdiction was only supplied, due to common error, for each one of his acts for which his jurisdiction was necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful and, as I believe Miasciewicz puts it, "the good of the Church." As soon as his lack of habitual jurisdiction is made known, jurisdiction can no longer be supplied to the external forum for the validity of his jurisdictional acts, since common error no longer exists.
While this is not an exact comparison, jurisdiction continues in the Eastern rites without much direct involvement from the Holy See at all. They don't wait for an interregnum to be over before appointing successors (as though jurisdiction flows not from the office but from the person as its source); they don't wait for the pope's direct approval before they fill vacant patriarchates; they don't--as far as I know--even await his retro-active ratification of their appointments in order for habitual jurisdiction to be presumed. Yet if ordinary jurisdiction certainly continues in this manner, and there is no positive law from St. Peter ordering that he and his successors gave a priori approval of all future jurisdictional acts in the Eastern rites, then it must be by divine law. Any restriction, then, such as imposed by Ad Apostolorum Principis is a matter of positive law and subject to the legal principle of epikeia, to wit: exception by appeal to divine law in cases where the application of the positive law to this or that case would prohibit or interfere with the fulfillment of the divine law by which that positive law has any authority at all.
Again, I could be wrong. However, instead of simply looking to how things normally work in the Church, we need to think outside the box to consider how things might work extraordinarily according to an essentialization of the relevant principles involved. That doesn't mean we make things up; it means we have to look at the Church could continue in principle in the most extreme circumstances, say, if ISIS were to bomb the College of Cardinals during a pontifical election. Where would the electors come from? What if the absence of an obvious central authority were to result in the lack of a resolution for a hundred years? How would the Church's offices continue in the meantime? Is there a way that these offices (and ordinary jurisdiction) could continue until a decision were made and the issue resolved? How would the faithful go to heaven?
Consider the words of Fr. O'Reilly, a well-reputed theologian writing after Vatican I about the Great Western Schism, a period of about 39 years during which there was no absolutely certain Visible Head until the matter was authoritatively resolved:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” [emphasis added]
Fr. O'Reilly had to have considered that many if not most diocesan offices would have been vacated by the time a Visible Head returned. How did he propose that ordinary jurisdiction would have or could have continued in those dioceses until that time? He doesn't say how, but the salient point here is that he must have thought it possible, in principle. It seems to me that it must be possible. The question is: How? That's all I'm talking about.
I will finish with the words of Fr. O'Reilly making this same point:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” [emphasis added]
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2018 15:34:02 GMT -5
Ah! back to the good stuff before some idiot so rudely hijacked it. Please forgive me. In my opinion this is such a good healthy debate and the best on any forum. Pacelli's accessment is still the food for membership and jurisdiction meditation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 13:04:17 GMT -5
Sorry for the brief delay, I ran out of time yesterday to continue. I will answer all of your thoughtful posts today, and thank you for the polite discussion.
INPEFESS wrote:
My point was that none of them have explicitly claimed this right, at least as far as I know. None other than the two I mentioned ever claimed an office which would give them this right to shepherd the sheep.
INPEFESS wrote:
The authorization to shepherd the flock comes from the office that the particular bishop or priest holds in the Church. If one attempts to shepherd the flock, that is teach or govern the flock, without having an office in the Church which gives him the authorization to do so, then such a man is an robber, he is taking the goods of the Church which do not belong to him unto himself.
INPEFESS wrote:
Holy orders does not give one the right to teach, govern and sanctify. The orders give a man the ability to do these things, the authorization to use the powers of the orders, whether bishop or priest, must come from the Church. If a Catholic priest was laicized prior to Vatican II, he remained a priest, as the orders remain forever, but could not any longer lawfully use his holy orders, except of course to hear confessions in the danger of death, if a bishop was removed or retired from his see, he could no longer shepherd the flock he once ruled over. Even though the man remains a bishop, the office is no longer his.
INPEFESS wrote:
They must have the office first, before they can potentially lose that office.
INPEFESS wrote:
It’s possible that offices can continue to be passed down based on the tacit will of the last Pope, or in our case the supplied jurisdiction of the antipope. This is not what is happening in Traditionalism. None have made a claim to an existing office. Some, (Musey and Vezelis) have made up their own new office, dividing the USA into two dioceses, one for the east of the Mississippi and one for the west. Who authorized this new office to be made? Can men just make up their own sees and then proclaim themselves rulers of all Catholics within that see?
This is why I asked you what office any of the traditional bishops are claiming? Are they claiming an existing office of the Church, such as the bishop of the diocese of Albany, the bishop of Omaha, Nebraska, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, it they are nit claiming these or any other existing offices, then what offices are they claiming? If the offices do not exist, are they willing to admit they are making up their own new office, and then filling that office on their own initiative?
INPEFESS wrote:
The argument is possible if you are taking about a sitting bishop choosing his own successor for the office. Again, this is not what has happened or is happening in Traditionalism, so the argument fails, as it is not the same thing,
INPEFESS wrote:
Jurisdiction is attached to an office, and the man who lawfully assumes that office attracts the jurisdiction. It does not exist outside of the office. One must first become the officeholder, prior to having jurisdiction.
INPEFESS wrote:
I am not disputing that bishops can be appointed by the indirect or tacit will of the last pope. Such has happened in Church history, and it is a valid principle. As o said above, however, this is not what has happened in Traditionalism. No one has been apoo8nted by neighboring bishops to a See, or by an existing ordinary for someone to be his successor. No office of the Catholic Church has been claimed by any traditional bishop. Jurisdiction, the right to rule and teach the flock, (the right to shepherd) comes from the office, not the orders, and the traditional bishops simply lack this right.
INPEFESS wrote:
Well, of course, the theologians are focusing on unlawful usurpers, Catholics never obtained holy orders or episcopal orders illicitly. Catholics obeyed the laws of the Church. A laymen knew he was a layman and didn’t try to find some obscure retired bishop somewhere, or worse a schismatic, to obtain holy orders. But, the principles as explained by Van Noort and countless others remain. Namely, that orders alone do not give a man the right to teach or govern in the Catholic Church, Orders alone do not even give the man who has them the authorization to say mass, or confect any other sacrament. That authorization must be given by the Church. To unlawfully use ones orders without being a priest in good standing who has the right to use them is unlawful.
The traditionalists have never received any authorization by an bishop or pope to use their holy orders. They hold no office, and are in essence wanderers who possess illicitly obtained orders, with no office or title, The only authorization that these men can claim to use their orders, (not speaking of confession), is the explicit authorization given in the Code for the laity, who for a good reason, may request the sacraments from such men, and they may respond by using their orders on a case by case basis to answer that request,
The fact of these requests does not create an office for such a priest. The priest in question never becomes a parish priest to those requesting the sacraments from him. The request of the laity are just that a request if the laity, and such requests cannot establish an office. The laity have no such power in the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 15:00:29 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
The Church does have defense mechanisms against any enemies, including heretics and antipopes. These defenses were not used in this crisis. I have been very careful to not assign blame, and I do not judge the good intentions of the men who responded in the way they did.
But, if something is done that is well meaning, but wrong, does the good intention make it the right thing to do? I think you know the answer. Is the traditionalist response somehow above critical thinking and objective criticism? I contend that the narrative being spoon fed by various traditionalists to faithful Catholics since the 70’s and 80’s is full of holes and built on a foundation of sand.
INPEFESS wrote:
There were other options that were much more possible in the 1970’s. They were not pursued, leaving us with what is commonly referred to as Traditionalism. These options still exist today, but we no longer have access to the low hanging fruit.
INPEFESS wrote:
God has not left us without legitimate bishops and priests throughout this crisis. The eastern rites have remained essentially intact, and many, (thousands) of pre-June 1968 Roman rite bishops and priests still live even now in 2018.
INPEFESS wrote:
St. Thomas was writing about a true necessity, when a man is dying, he needs a priest, otherwise he has a much higher possibility of being damned, especially if he is guilty of mortal sin. The Code specifically autgorizes all priests, even schismatic to hear ones confessions in the danger of death. The necessity in that situation in beyond dispute.
INPEFESS wrote:
There used to be a day when Catholics knew to trust the Church, that God was in charge, and had not abandoned his Church, and to accept with docility their situation. They did not create systems that exist outside of the Divine Constitution of the Church to make up for what they think God did not give them.
The systems established by the traditionalists: seminaries, organizations, bishops, priests, hierarchies, chapels, schools, etc. are existing outside of the systems set up by Our Lord, known as the Divine Constitution of the Church: Pope, hierarchical bishops, approved priests, dioceses, approved seminaries, approved churches and oratories, etc. The Church is a governed organization, it is not a free for all. The sacraments of the Church, by divine and ecclesiastical las are tightly regulated and controlled by the Pope and the bishops in union with them.
INPEFESS wrote:
Agreed!
INPEFESS wrote:
I agree that we are in an unprecedented crisis, but that does not justify solutions that deviate from Divine law and Tradition. The idea of having illicitly consecrated and ungovenred bishops who lack an office in the Church roam the world “shepherding” the flock without any commission to do so by the Chu4vh is a dangerous novelty, and I believe it is foreign to Catholic principles. Novel thinking is always dangerous for Catholics. Catholics always strive to solve problems using approved principles relying on approved sources.
I can’t even tell you how many Catholics I have come across believe that these traditional bishops and priests have some sort of legitimate office and authority in the Church. This fact alone highlights the rotten fruits of traditionalism. Catholics have shifted away from looking to the lawful hierarchy to these ”traditional” bishops, priests, groups and organizations as their true shepherds who operate with the Divine commission, and have completely forgotten where to look for the legitimate hierarchy, One man has even written a whole book, currently for sale, defending this idea, and he is far from alone in his views.
The traditional groups are all on the fine line of falling into becoming schismatic sects, some may already be there., If the unauthorzed leaders of these groups do actually shepherd the sheep, (teach and govern) and the laity follow these unapproved shepherds as their lawful hierarchical leader then it has already crossed crossed the line, If the leader and group shun all authority and exist only to provide the sacraments and do not attempt to “shepherd the sheep,” then the group has not fallen into schism.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 15:05:46 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
I ageee completely with this, and it is well a written explanation of the relevant principles. If this is what you are defending, then at the core we agree, not disagree.
It seems to me that the exact point of departure between us is that you appear to believe that offices can be created by private individuals, i.e. not the Pope, and that these made up offices can then be filled and attract jurisdiction to the one holding the office.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 19:23:37 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
Agreed, although I would not attribute the lawfulness of the bishop’s appointment to epikeia, rather it would come through supplied jurisdiction for the act of the antipope who is commonly regarded as the Pope who approves the appointments, even if it is just tacitly.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 19:39:46 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
I agree, we can’t make things up, and at the same time we need to educate ourselves on what is essential to believe regarding the papacy. Why should we reject Pius XIII or “Pope” Michael, or many of the others? The reason why is that there are lawful electors for the Pope. First and foremost it is the College of Cardinals who by ecclesiatical law have the right of election. If ever they all die, that right devolves to the clergy of Rome along with the hierarchy. Neither of these bodies can completely fail, so the devolution could never go lower than them.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that the post June 1968 Roman Rite bishops no longer were valid, that the jurisdiction was not supplied to them as the common good was not served by bishops who were potentially invalid, and who, by 1969 were imposing a potentially invalid and certainly impious rite on their flocks. But, in the east, alothough all was not perfect, these bishops were maintaining unquestionably valid sacraments, beautifiul and pristine liturgies, and for a long time lived as though Vatican II didn’t exist.
The eastern rites clearly continued the apostolic succession, and have been the visibly and obvious continuation of Catholicism in practice as it existed prior to Vatican II, with bishops ruling over flocks, with approved parishes, and Catholics being one in government and worship through the sacraments. While it’s possible that some in the east have defected, there is no solid case showing that they have all or even most have defected.
So, while the Roman apsotolic lines are almost gone, with the few elderly bishops hanging on, the east, unlike the west has continued to transmit the succession to new bishops who keep the mark of apostolic succession going with each new bishop.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 22, 2018 19:54:02 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
I ageee with all of this, as any Catholic of course should. The successors of the apostles and the local Church of Rome cannot fail. One can see how this is possible in this crisis only when one grasps what exactly is taight on membership in the Church and how that membership is lost.
For too long, assumptions about other Catholics being automatically members of the Conciliar sect or false ideas that they are heretics have dominated the narrative among many “Sedevacantists.” The reality of our situation is that there are still Catholic clerics in Rome, that there are still eastern rite Catholic bishops ruling over their flocks, and there are most likely among the elderly Roman rite bishops still some left who can be found who stull believe and professs the true Faith. The Church is intact and in its essentials identical years ago, and so forth. The only changes since Vatican II are accidental.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 19:11:16 GMT -5
Pacelli, First, I likewise apologize for delay. There have been some pressing family matters I have had to attend to, so I am just now getting a few moments to reply. Unfortunately, it seems I am too far behind to really give all of your posts a substantive reply, as they deserve. I am going to have to alter the course of the discussion for the sake of brevity and practicality, or we won't get anywhere. After reading some of your posts, I could definitely press the habitual jurisdiction issue. It seems I am not expressing myself clearly enough in such a way that you don't think that I am arguing for no distinction between Orders and Appointments. As I said, I know the difference, and what I am arguing does address this difference; it even accommodates it, from the point of the view of divine law. But due to a multiplicity of factors, I wont press the issue further, since, from point of view, it doesn't really matter much to me whether they will or will not one day be found to have such jurisdiction. After all, as I think both you and I would agree, the true Church continues with habitual jurisdiction in the East. As I have pointed out before, while the East is in material schism with a materially schismatic church and religion, the absence of a formal condemnation of the Novus Ordo by the true and certain authority of the Church absolves them of formal schism. In the same way, all of the Catholics, clerics, and cardinals who were in communion with the false popes during the Great Western Schism were, in fact, material schismatics, but there being saints on both sides of the issue, indicates that the Church did in fact include even those who, through no fault of their own, were in communion with a false pope by mistake, pending the authoritative declaration of the Church. They did in fact have the true Faith and they did in fact have the (at least) virtual intention of being united with the true Church. That stipulated, I must point out that I do still not entirely agree with you assessment of the traditionalists' situation. Even if they do in fact lack habitual jurisdiction--and as I've said I will put that aside to address a more fundamental question--I do think it is appropriate for traditional Catholics to consider that worthy traditional clergy do in fact possess supplied jurisdiction for many, if not most, of the actions they perform (HUGE emphasis on "worthy"). I presume you are intimately familiar with the mechanics of supplied jurisdiction, so I will propose to you a scenario instead which, while not exactly a one-to-one comparison, still acts as a more physical analogy to our spiritual situation. Imagine, in 1950, the directly appointed bishop of Cincinnati being kicked out of his diocese by invading Muslims who are all but setting up Sharia Law in the United States. He is very old but is forced to flee in fear of his life across the country, along with his faithful but scattered congregation. He finds refuge in an underground cave where many of his congregation--as well as those from other congregations whose bishops were not so fortunate--stay in exile, as it were. His church in Cincinnati has been destroyed and replaced with a Mosque, he is thousands of miles from his see, and he has little-to-no ability to determined who the pope is, if there is a pope, or even how to communicate with him if there is one. Does he still have habitual jurisdiction to continue to perform the functions of a directly appointed bishop in this cave? I am certain you will answer "yes," so I will continue. He is very close to death and fears for the spiritual well-being of his congregation and faithful, and desires to provide only for the continuity of the Church. He consecrates a local priest as his successor--the bishop with the intention of consecrating the priest only to be his successor in the see and continue on performing the functions the bishop was performing, and the priest with the intention of being consecrated by the bishop only to be the successor in the see and continue on performing those same functions. There is no ecclesiastical formalization, no canonical appointment from Ad Apostolorum Principis, and no Papal Mandate authorizing the consecration. Instead, it is an indirect appointment made specifically with the intention of carrying on the work of the bishop that was commissioned to him personally by the then-certain pope, albeit thousands of miles away in a secret, dark cave. The old bishop then dies. Does the new bishop have habitual jurisdiction to train and ordain priests, offer Mass for the faithful, provide the sacraments, and perform whatever other functions of the old bishop that are necessary for the continuity of the Faith and spiritual welfare of the faithful while exiled in the cave? If he does not have habitual jurisdiction, does he have supplied jurisdiction to do these things, provided that he is thinking of and acting for the long-term survival of the Faith, the Church, and the salvation of his flock? This is where we get to why this discussion is so important, because while John Q. Catholic might need absolution hic et nunc, what about John Q. Catholic, Jr. in 30 years when the situation is only worsening and the cave darkening? Does the Church supply him jurisdiction to perform actions hic et nunc necessary for John, Jr.'s hic et nunc spiritual necessity in 30 years? This is the fundamental question, in my opinion, facing traditional Catholics. We know that an operative principle of ordinary, non-habitual jurisdiction supplied extraordinarily (supplied jurisdiction) is spiritual necessity for the common good. Jurisdiction is only supplied in cases where it is necessary for the common spiritual good of the faithful. But what is "necessary" can be distinguished into short-term and long-term ends. (We typically think of short-term ends with regard to supplied jurisdiction, since the problems the jurisdiction is supplied to resolve are usually short-term with a properly-functioning hierarchy. But that is not the case today, unfortunately.) Something can be necessary hic et nunc, or something can be juridically necessary to do hic et nunc so that the necessary act hic et nunc of 30 years in the future can be supplied. I'm not asking you to tell me that of course the Church doesn't supply jurisdiction carte blanche for any act by anyone with valid Orders; however, a strong case can be made for our poor new bishop in the cave, who can trust in God all he wants, but is nonetheless expected to continue to act to be best of his ability with the intention of the fulfillment of the mission he received from the old bishop who intended that the new bishop succeed him in his mission. But he can only do that if he acts for the long-term, or else he is only carrying out part of the mission: the spiritual welfare of the faithful who happen to be alive. His failure to provide for the long-term is a failure to provide for the spiritual welfare of the faithful of the approaching generation. His precarious situation could go on for 100 years or more; he has to think of the worst-case scenario in preparing the best-case outcome for the faithful who have been trusted to his care. If the old bishop hadn't taken these precautions, there would be no new bishop, and these faithful would be without the sacraments and without any immediate hope. The new bishop is simply doing whatever he can to provide for the next generation when he dies. He isn't turning himself into a bishop factory, where he "lays hands lightly on anyone" (Fr. Cekada, Two Bishops in Every Garage); he is simply providing only that which is absolutely necessary for the next generation of Catholics, for the continuity of the Church, and for the availability of the sacraments to as many of the faithful in hiding, even in other caves, say, as he can. If he intends jurisdiction to be present in 30 years to absolve John Q. Catholic, Jr., who will go on to commit mortal sins against hope, then he needs to ordain valid priests before he died to be able to receive this jurisdiction (at least, I hope you will grant, in the external forum) from the Church when that future absolution is hic et nunc an immediate spiritual necessity. Is this historically unprecedented? Probably. But is it in principle? I'd be hard-pressed to say it is, when considering the very purpose of jurisdiction and the ends for which it is supplied. Hopefully this "Quick Reply" takes this discussion in a more positive and fruitful direction.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 26, 2018 14:27:31 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:No, problem, this is not small subject, and it involves, at least for me decades of research, thinking and working through complex principles. I don’t mind taking a turn on this, but all of my replies were to your previous comments, but let us move on and cover new ground. INPEFESS wrote:The part of this issue that still needs resolution is whether offices of the Church, which is where the jurisdiction is attracted can be self-created? I strongly believe this is not possible. If offices cannot be self-created, then the next question is whether habitual jurisdiction can be attracted by a man without an office in the Church. I also contend that this is not possible. INPEFESS wrote:On this we completely agree I will note that I know of at least one deep thinker on this matter who believes that Roman rite episcopal appointees would also fall under supplied jurisdiction and so long as they have the Faith, they could assume to office. I have a problem with this, as Roman rite appointments have potentially invalid orders and force potentialky invalid sacramental rites on their dioceses. It seems to me that if the Church supplied for their defect in appointment, it could very well mean that the Church is giving stones rather than bread. Such appointments harm the common good, which is the foundational basis of supplied jurisdiction. In my opinion, and I think you agree, that supplied jurisdiction for the antipope’s appointments apply only for the eastern rites, where Catholics are still being spiritually nourished by the Church, just as the Catholics under the antipopes during the western schism. More later....
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 26, 2018 17:29:29 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: Actually, my answer is no, he does not keep his habitual jurisdiction once he leaves the boundaries of his diocese. I think a good argument could be made that so long as the faithful under his care were in error about his status that jurisdiction would be supplied for confessions and other acts.
The very scenario you described did already happen in the Church. Many bishop’s sees were overrun by Muslims and the bishops fled to the west and continued to use their episcopal powers to ordain without the permission of the local ordinary in the new areas where they settled. The Council of Trent emphatically put an end to this abuse.
INPEFESS wrote:
Once the bishop left his diocese, he no longer had any authority to commission himself or anyone else to an office in another diocese. This means that although he is a bishop, he is a bishop who is living outside of the place where his authority can be found. In the new place, he must obtain permission from the local ordinary to use his episcopal powers, and without that permission, unless he applying to supplied jurisdiction for specific acts, the actions would be illicit.
I do not think the ordination in question would be licit, as the diocesan bishop of that area must be the judge of the fitness of the candidate, and it would only be him who could give the new priest his canonical mission. As tragic as this situation is, bishops lack authority outside of their diocese and they cannot use their episcopal powers outside of their own see, without permission of the local bishop. The only exception to this is if the see were vacant, in an emergency situation, the Church could supply for a bishop to ordain fit men as diocesan priests. This precedent was set by St. Athanasius who did just that, he ordained men for dioceses overrun by the Arians in which the local bishops themselves had defected. He also consecrated bishops for sees, in the same manner.
The Catholic Church has never consecrated bishops that would be free agents, with no office and who assume an office unto themselves. Not every bishop rules over a see, they may be consecrated for other purposes, auxiliary, coadjutor, etc, or there may be retired ordinaries, who no longer rule in the Church, but may help out a diocese with the local bishop’s permission.
I do not think the bishop in question in your hypothetical would actually consecrate a new bishop, unless he had the grounds, standing and a solid argument to consecrate and appoint the new bishop to an office.
There are grave risks to merely consecrating a bishop to roam about the world without an office and this risk magnifies if he actually begins “shepherding” Catholics in vacant sees. The risks are so serious, that I cannot see how this scenario could ever be justified.
INPEFESS wrote:
My question is what is the appointment for, what office? Is the bishop appointing his successor of the Diocese of Cincinnati in exile? If that is the case, maybe. If not, what office is he appointing the new bishop for? Is he creating a new office for the exiled flock? If that is what he is doing, then I strongly believe he is wrong as he lacks the power to create a new office in the Church.
INPEFESS wrote:
The consecration is illicit, so the new bishop would be ipso facto excommunicated. The new bishop must submit himself as soon as possible to the Holy See. The new bishop has no right or authority to train or ordain new priests. He is an excommunicated bishop with no title or office, Regarding the mass, extreme unction, baptism, etc., yes, the new bishop can rely on canon 2261 which authorizes him to use his holy orders if the laity request it from him.
INPEFESS wrote:
Yes, the action of choosing a successor could be supplied, so long as he makes contact with and collaborates with the local clergy and any remaining neighboring bishops and appoints the succeeding bishop to the local see where he is residing. I believe this act, of a presuming the Pope’s will in his absence and appointing a neighboring bishop to an existing see has a strong foundation in Church history, and the act would be licit.
The new bishop would then exercise habitual jurisdiction over the new see, as the Pope’s implied will would supply for the act. This is far different than merely consecrating a vagus bishop with no office to just wing it with the laity, until he assumes an office in the Church, and we cannot be sure that he ever will anyway.
I do not believe the survival of the Church has ever been an issue. Our Faith says as much. Our Lord made us a promise and He will keep it, that much is certain. The traditional bishops do not continue the apostolic succession, so they do not continue the Teaching Church, the hierarchy. In order for one to be a successor of the apostles, one must have jurisdiction, otherwise, he does not meeet the criteria.
The old Roman rite bishops along with the eastern rite bishops have continued the apostolic succession. The Church has never been in danger of it failing, nor could it be. Since the traditional bishops have not and cannot preserve the apostolic succession, that argument to justify their existence is lacking.
I have argued that the Catholic response of the 1970’s was haphazard and theologically weak. By saying this, I am not assigning blame, just so we are clear, I am critically thinking about the public record of what the leaders did and why they did it. Archbishop Lefebvre, for his part, recongnized Paul VI while simultaneously calling the Conciliar Church schismatic. While other clerics realized that Lefebvre must try to work with other bishops to resolve the crisis, he did not and chose to train priests who would roam the earth without any mission to do so from the Church, and receiving no governance from any lawful authority of the Catholic Church.
Among all of the others, many were diocesan or religious priests who simply refused to say the Novus Ordo, and said mass in homes or established independent chapels. While it is laudable that these priests rejected the Novus Ordo, one common theme existed, no one could ultimately explain what was going on or how to resolve it. This was primarily the duty of the bishops, as they are the watchmen against the wolf, but the priests are the next rung in defense of the Faith.
The only response to this crisis was to focus on the heretic, Paul VI, to denounce him, and for the remaining good bishops and faithful clerics of Rome to elect a Pope. The traditionalist answer of creating new structures, bishops, priests, seminaries, schools, etc. has distracted Catholics from what needs to be done, and in my opinion has put them to sleep. Why worry about petitioning the hierarchy and the clerics of Rome when you have your “parish, “pastor” “seminaries,”and an endless supply of bishops and priests in perpetuity without the Pope or the lawful bishops? The traditionalist response in my view has slowed any resolution to this crisis, and has left us with a comfortable fascade of the Catholic Church. The fact that so many are now thinking (and even defending) that the traditionalist bishops are the hierrachy is proof that this is entire novelty poses an extreme danger. More later...
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 27, 2018 15:11:51 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
I think many of us from Europe and North America are spoiled, we think we have a right to clergy, even if the Church does not provide authorized clergy to us. I asked you previously about Catholics living in former times (let’s say 1920 just for an easy date) in remote areas, whether they had the right to seek out a valid bishop to ordain someone local, on their own authority, to ensure themselves of regular sacraments. Many of these Catholics in far flung missionary lands may have had to live for long periods of time without seeing a priest, yet they trusted Christ Our Lord, through his Church, as the provider of the sacraments, even if that meant not much of a sacramental life, rather than engage in private initiative to that end.
INPEFESS wrote:
So long as the conditions of supplied jurisdiction are met, then yes, the Church supplies. If the conditions are not met, then no. If the person has no chance of coming into contact with an authorized confessor for a long time, the Church will also supply as this meets the definition of a danger of death. Personally, I don’t think applies to many of us who are living in places in which elderly Roman rite clergy still live or where we can easily find eastern rite priests, both of which are authorized confessors.
As an aside, I find it interesting that for decades the SSPX adamantly defended the idea that the Church supplied jurisdiction for confessions, but quickly accepted faculties from Francis, as though they thought they were now needed. If nothing has changed in the Church, and there is an emergency, and the “Pope” must be resisted, why bother with faculties from him, if the Church is perpetually supplying them anyway? The same could be said about the new marriage agreement, that gives the SSPX authorization to marry Catholics. The SSPX is implicitly admitting by this that their decades old narrative on supplied jurisdiction is weak. If the narrative were strong, they would say, “Although we may accept faculties from Francis, we do not need such faculties, as the Church always supplies for confessions and marriages by SSPX priests.”
INPEFESS wrote:
Yes, but who created this problem? The first cause of course was Paul VI, but the second cause was the deeply flawed early traditionalists who chose to build seminaries, consecrate bishops and ordain priests outside of the structures of the Catholic Church. I agree that the canonists never envisioned a long term reliance on supplied jurisdiction, at least it doesn’t seem that way, but I contend that a correct Catholic response to this crisis in line with the Divine Constitution of the Church would have led to a resolution of this crisis on both the short and long term in such way as the Church is supposed to operate.
When the early traditionalists, most specifically, Lefebvre, chose to respond to the crisis by creating new priests, answerable to him, that would operate anywhere in the universal church without authoritative oversight or mission, then he, by that act created something new and novel that never existed in the Catholic Church. Many just accepted this novelty, as they bought into the narrative that there was an emergency and we needed priests, otherwise there would no longer be certainly valid sacraments given through the traditional rites of the Church. It sounds reasonable, but it left out a key ingredient to how priests operate in the Catholic Church. It’s like baking a cake without flour, it may have every other ingredient, but it will no longer be a cake. The actions of Lefebvre created mission-less priests, who by that fact have no commission to use their holy orders in the Catholic Church.
I argue that such an act is inherently wrong, and unjustifiable. It has no basis in Church, history or Tradition. It is a novelty with no theological ot canonical support, The structures created by the new priests of the SSPX and the splinter groups are unapproved organizations that in effect mimic the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and as you even admit, the bishops of these groups take on the role of shepherding the sheep, a role that exclusively belongs to the lawful hierarchy and the priests commissioned to work under them in their respective territories.
INPEFESS wrote: In my post above, I did explain how this could be done within the Tradition of the Church. There are historical precedents which illustrate what the correct courses of action should have been, that would have been in line with the Tradition of the Church. The spiritual welfare of the flock could have been safeguarded, using a traditional method, but this was not done in favor of a novel and untraditional new idea.
INPEFESS wrote:
As I wrote above, in the entire scenario that you have put forward, it presupposes that this was the elderly bishop’s only option. The scenario you have described is not what happened in the Catholic Church in the 1960’s and 70’s. At that time we did have loyal bishops to the Church who were obviously in a state of confusion or perhaps disorientation. The way Catholic Bishops are supposed to react to heresy is to fight against the heresy, and this means using their teaching offices as individuals to fight against it, but more importantly it is for the bishops to gather in council to form a unified opposition to the new heresy. In our situation, the goal of this council must have been to declare the papal office as vacant, and to then, in collaboration with the faithful clerics of Rome to elect a new Pope.
The idea that a Catholic Bishop should react to heresy and the emergence of a new sect that is mimicking the universal Church by building unapproved seminaries and ordaining vagus mission-less priests to ensure holy orders is preposterous. It was a bad idea, and we have all suffered for it. Many often say that Lefebvre was the Athanasius of our times. I strongly disagree, he did not fight the heresy in the same manner as St. Athanasius, who preached against the new heresy, consecrated bishops to fill sees that were occupied by the Arian intruders, and ordain priests for dioceses. St. Athanasius was not fighting to preserve valid sacraments, he was fighting to defend the Church and the Faith and he did so using a correct Catholic response, something that has not happened in our crisis.
That was the only way to correctly respond, there was no other way, and the incorrect unTraditional response of the traditionalist has not helped us, it has created a new mess that has distracted Catholics from the correct resolution to this crisis in conformity with Catholic principles, history and Tradition, thereby neutralizing a true and correct Catholic response.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jan 27, 2018 16:44:56 GMT -5
I know you are addressing a very specific set of definitions and laws regarding the existence and justification for traditionalist undertakings. From the side of the laity, and even traditionalist priests as mere Catholics, we are so de-railed that there are few of us who can even keep a clear head to wade through these issues.
These issues have become so personal that acting in the generally accepted manner of a traditionalist, we are so biased that it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable, truthful discussion.
The common stages of Traditionalism 1. Figure out that "something is up" 2. Research options 3. Find a traditional Latin mass, or masses, changing chapels sometimes 4. Settle the Pope question 5. Become comfortable with group ABC and committed to theological position XYZ 6. Everything group ABC does is now justified under the law 7. Anyone who disagrees or questions your position is a bad, liberal Catholic or not a Catholic at all 8. You are great and need to convert everyone to your way of thinking. Everyone should follow "your" bishop and go to your chapel!
Very, very few people have stopped to ask themselves difficult questions or to re-evaluate the situation based on new information they learn along the way. At no point is anyone asking themselves how to lawfully justify what they do, they ask themselves how they can make themselves in the right. Traditionalism for many is about making the square peg fit. No one stopped asked why they could take any of these actions.
Bottom line: Most cannot give you an airtight justification for their actions using precise, accepted terminology. There is very little interest in hearing the truth because it is hard. That's what happens when one wants to make themselves in the right rather than seeking truth.
We could save ourselves a lot of headaches if we could all just look at this honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Jan 27, 2018 17:29:23 GMT -5
I question what I do almost every single Sunday, and would be willing to change (again) if God so willed. Perhaps it's an advantage of being single, in that I don't have to consider the views of a spouse or the needs of the children. I suspect that at least some traditionalists who are married with children would make a different choice about where they attend Mass were they not married.
I hear it said sometimes by traditionalists that "the sacraments are everything." Well, actually the Faith is everything, which we can have even without the sacraments. My question always is, "At what Mass option is God most glorified?" Frankly, I don't always know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 27, 2018 20:42:25 GMT -5
If Christ thought the sacraments were secondary to faith and not the intrinsic cause (Through Christ) he would not have given them to us. The Sacraments especially Baptism and Communion are almost like the air we breath. Our life depends on having air to breath. My estimation at this late date is as a sheep to stay as close as I can to the greenest pastures available. And not judge the other sheep for doing so at other sections of the burned and patchy Pasture.
|
|