|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 23, 2020 18:52:36 GMT -5
+Manuel José Bernardino Piñera Carvallo, who lived in Chile, was the last living member of the Catholic hierarchy appointed by Pope Pius XII, and died on June 21st, 2020 at the age of 104. May he Rest In Peace. www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpinc.html
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 26, 2020 16:02:59 GMT -5
What does this leave us with?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2020 20:04:06 GMT -5
What does this leave us with? I think many of us who have watched this problem over the years hoped that this would be resolved involving the Pius XII bishops with at least one bishop in choosing or at least recognizing a new and certain Pope. It would have given the Pope-elect a major boost as far as helping Catholics form certainty that he is truly the legitimate pope. Now, without any Pius XII bishops left, that's no longer going to happen. I think it can be argued that the remaining Roman rite bishops appointed by John XXIII and Paul VI appointees appointed until he changed the consecration rite of bishops (June 18, 1968) would be legitimate members of the hierarchy through at least supplied jurisdiction, so long as they have not fallen away into heresy. There are 7 John XXIII appointed bishops still alive, and there are least 23 Paul VI bishops appointed before the 1968 rite replaced the Catholic rite. I have serious doubts as to whether the Paul VI and all other later appointees, consecrated in the 1968 doubtfully valid rite, would attract supplied jurisdiction to establish them as a local ordinary over a Latin rite flock, as the common good is clearly and obviously, at least as far as I see it, not served. Beyond the Roman rite, all of the eastern rite bishops, validly consecrated, who have not lost the Faith, would continue the hierarchy. The day may soon come, and probably will come, IMO, that the entire Roman Rite hierarchy may be gone, and it will only be the Eastern rites that have living members of the hierarchy remaining. The eastern rite bishops are the last bishops left on earth, anyway, who are visibly governing their flocks, even if grossly inadequate, and thereby actually visibly exercising their jurisdiction. Despite their shortcomings, they are still ordaining new priests, and maintaining the Catholic rites, so in this sense they are feeding their sheep with the true Faith (as it is taught by the rites of worship) and the true sacraments. So the short answer is the death of the last Pope Pius XII changes nothing of the status quo, but it is a sad moment in this crisis, as our last episcopal connection to Pope Pius XII is now forever gone.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 27, 2020 18:37:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 27, 2020 21:25:40 GMT -5
I notice your hesitancy in embracing this new doctrine, with your calling it "interesting," and not going beyond that. You are a well read Catholic and I think your Catholic sense is warning you to be careful here. In the explanation by James Larrabee quoted above, it's important to keep in mind that his opinion is not the teaching of Salaverri or Bellarmine which is what his article was about anyway, their teaching on papal elections in relation to this crisis. He is speculating on a matter, giving his opinion, not quoting Salaverri. His opinion as explained by his assertion, "neither do I see a necessary incompatibility between that and a universal defection, in principle temporary, of the hierarchy" is just that, his own, and it has no support in Catholic theology, and conversely the opposite has been taught repeatedly by Catholic theologians, that the Church cannot be wanting with it's legitimate pastors, jurisdictional bishops, that they are essential to the Church itself. In my opinion, this is more than just a novelty, it is a heresy, as it goes directly against the clear teaching of the Vatican Council and the opposite has been taught over and over again by the Church's theologians when treating the doctrines of the Apostolic Succession or the indefectibility of the Church. Where I precisely disagree with Mr. Larrabbe is this: he posits the possibility of a Church with no living successors of the Apostles for a period of time (temporarily), I say that this possibility is impossible and the belief that it is possible is directly at odds with the teaching of the Church, as taught clearly by the Vatican Council. I also believe it is more than just a novelty, it is a heresy to assert that the Church can exist, even temporarily, without its legitimate Apostolic successors, alive and in the world at all times until the end of the time.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jun 28, 2020 9:58:36 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli,
I could not agree more with your latest comments! Thank you. But does this mean that Mr. Lane, who posted the article, has had a paradigm shift in his thinking? I have been watching the interviews with Louie Verrecchio and I haven’t seen any indication of this. Or did I miss something in the interviews.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 28, 2020 12:25:18 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I could not agree more with your latest comments! Thank you. But does this mean that Mr. Lane, who posted the article, has had a paradigm shift in his thinking? I have been watching the interviews with Louie Verrecchio and I haven’t seen any indication of this. Or did I miss something in the interviews. Hi Wenceslav, I haven't discussed this with him, so I am not sure of his thinking in posting it on the Bellarmine Forums, but I can say this: I have known John for 20 years and I am certain that if his position changed he would publicly state as much with his reasons. The article was good actually, if that one problematic statement is omitted. Maybe it's possible that in reading it that John missed it. I'm not sure.
|
|