|
Post by scholasticism on Nov 28, 2018 14:03:06 GMT -5
Wow, great drawing, thanks again for this.
I notice however that the "Macedonian Catholic Church" was "reconciled" in 2008. I have to ask: reconciled to what? I rather doubt that any secretive real Catholics, hiding out in or near Rome, had much, if anything at all, to do with it. Ergo, I hope you understand if I am rather disinclined to trust the Macedonian Catholic Church as being capable of having any real canonical mission from the Church (not counting supplied jurisdiction of course, but nothing more real and lasting than that).
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 28, 2018 14:49:01 GMT -5
Wow, great drawing, thanks again for this.
I notice however that the "Macedonian Catholic Church" was "reconciled" in 2008. I have to ask: reconciled to what? I rather doubt that any secretive real Catholics, hiding out in or near Rome, had much, if anything at all, to do with it. Ergo, I hope you understand if I am rather disinclined to trust the Macedonian Catholic Church as being capable of having any real canonical mission from the Church (not counting supplied jurisdiction of course, but nothing more real and lasting than that). The argument in favor of its legitimacy would be if the antipope, due to common error, was supplied the jurisdiction to approve the new rite and its hierarchy. It is for the common good of the Macedonian Catholics that they have a a vald and legitimate rite, and there was certainly a common error as to the legitimacy Benedict XVI, so it seems there is at least a good argument to be made.
|
|
|
Post by scholasticism on Nov 28, 2018 14:59:49 GMT -5
I notice however that the "Macedonian Catholic Church" was "reconciled" in 2008. I have to ask: reconciled to what? I rather doubt that any secretive real Catholics, hiding out in or near Rome, had much, if anything at all, to do with it. Ergo, I hope you understand if I am rather disinclined to trust the Macedonian Catholic Church as being capable of having any real canonical mission from the Church (not counting supplied jurisdiction of course, but nothing more real and lasting than that). I just noticed that your Resource about "Where are the Eastern Rites found throughout the World?" lists the Macedonian Church as being reconciled in 1918, which if so would make quite a difference. So which is it? 2008 or 1918?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 28, 2018 15:16:45 GMT -5
The Catholics in Macedonia existed going back even to 1885 under an apostolic exarch. The 2005 date was the date they were given their own self-governing rite and hierarchy. It seems the 1922 date was based on the Catholics of the exarch being absorbed into the Bulgarian Catholic eparchy. The Wikipedia article is short, but covers the history: link
|
|
|
Post by scholasticism on Nov 28, 2018 15:38:50 GMT -5
Pardon me for being just a bit leery of such a justification for the legitimacy of a Rite accepted in 2008 by the Modernists (assuming that's really when it happened) since it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the case made by Msgr. Charles Journet on behalf of a legitimacy (real and actual jurisdiction) on the part of the Eastern schismatics, specifically:
Note: this "Rome continues to grant to dissident Oriental priests the power ..." bit refers not to any actual known granting on the part of Rome in existence when he was writing this in 1955 or previous, but to a hypothetical claim he was making to the effect that the "dissident Oriental priests" possessed a "tacit" jurisdiction from the Pope, owing to there not being any Papal "I hereby deprived any and all jurisdiction from those dissident Oriental priests separated from us in schism..." declaration on record (as if one were necessary!)
In fairness to Journet he also reminds us that:
So, one should think he should have realized that such a declaration should not have been necessary to withhold jurisdiction to the dissident Oriental priests.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 28, 2018 18:41:12 GMT -5
gentleman need I remind you discussion is frowned upon in the Resources subforum
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 28, 2018 23:31:46 GMT -5
I agree, Voxx, let’s move this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 29, 2018 0:00:10 GMT -5
Pardon me for being just a bit leery of such a justification for the legitimacy of a Rite accepted in 2008 by the Modernists (assuming that's really when it happened) since it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the case made by Msgr. Charles Journet on behalf of a legitimacy (real and actual jurisdiction) on the part of the Eastern schismatics, specifically:
Note: this "Rome continues to grant to dissident Oriental priests the power ..." bit refers not to any actual known granting on the part of Rome in existence when he was writing this in 1955 or previous, but to a hypothetical claim he was making to the effect that the "dissident Oriental priests" possessed a "tacit" jurisdiction from the Pope, owing to there not being any Papal "I hereby deprived any and all jurisdiction from those dissident Oriental priests separated from us in schism..." declaration on record (as if one were necessary!)
In fairness to Journet he also reminds us that:
So, one should think he should have realized that such a declaration should not have been necessary to withhold jurisdiction to the dissident Oriental priests.
I agree with you on being leery on anything done by the Conciliarists. In this case, however, the argument stands or falls on the strength of the argument. Is there a common error among eastern rite Catholics as to the status of the Conciliar “Popes?’ I believe so. Does it serve the common good that acts of appointment or the establishment of offices serves the common good for these Catholics? I believe so again. I also believe the same applies to Roman Rite appointees prior to the doubtful Paul Vi sacramental rites. The eastern Catholic bishops differ in status to the so called Orthodox. In the former case, we are dealing with Catholics in these rites who are in a state of common error as to the status of the man they regard as pope. It is this common error which classically allows a non- office holder to attract jurisdiction for specific acts.
|
|
|
Post by scholasticism on Nov 29, 2018 13:03:53 GMT -5
I agree, Voxx, let’s move this. Oops! Did I do that again? Sorry, and thanks for moving it.
|
|