|
Post by marcellusfaber on Mar 6, 2023 6:23:59 GMT -5
Following Pacelli and John Lane, I see that there must be a Catholic bishop with ordinary jurisdiction left somewhere in the world. However, there seems to be a reticence to name names or even to speculate about who the remaining bishops may be in the particular. For example, it seems to me that, so long as he remains a Catholic, Cardinal Arinze would be a candidate for one of the remaining members of the hierarchy as he was consecrated in 1961 and he was certainly the Archbishop of Onitsha in Nigeria until his resignation in 1985. An argument could therefore be made, though it may seem tenuous, that he remains the Archbishop of Onitsha as his resignation was not accepted by a Pope.
It is often said that the hierarchy is still visible, but that it would require a lot of work to have certainty about who belongs to it, though it would be theoretically possible to do that work. There are only sixteen bishops remaining in the Latin rite who were consecrated before 1968. Has nobody attempted to determine whether they still belong to the Church? I would say the same of the Eastern rite bishops. It occurs to me that, considering the importance of the question, someone must have at least attempted it. Is that not the case? Why the reticence?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 6, 2023 8:19:08 GMT -5
There is no absolute need to look for these men, as our Faith tells us that they are there. The fact that this Catholic teaching on the Apostolic Succession is being denied by some in our times, makes it no less true. I have posted this about this topic here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2375/term-novus-ordo-hierarchy-whereI am certainly not against anyone trying to figure out which of the bishops with claims to the apostolic succession are Catholics and therefore are the successors of the apostles, but be aware, that if you find them, you will most likely find men in the 1-8 categories in the linked post. There are many reasons why Catholics don't do this. One is clearly that most of us lack resources to travel and meet these men. Most of us also lack linguistic ability to read their writings, listen to their sermons or talk to them. Many of these eastern rite bishops live in their homelands, Egypt, Ukraine, Lebanon, Iraq, Ethiopia, etc., which are obviously not the best and safest travel destinations. As there is no condemned sect, the initial presumption must be that these men who meet the conditions of what an apostolic successor is, validly consecrated and having a legitimate claim to be a ruler of a diocese, must truly be the successors of the apostles, unless a case is made against them, individually, not as a group, showing one by one, that they are not inheritors of the succession, as they are not a Catholic, and have defected into heresy or apostasy, or it can be shown that they are certainly members of the new sect commonly referred to as the Conciliar sect. In my opinion, this is most easily seen in the eastern rites, who, with the exception of a few, have certainly been validly consecrated bishops, and as far as I can ascertain, are not heretics, at least I've not seen a case of heresy ever made against any one them, individually, by name. One last point, to keep in mind is that heresy is a clearly defined term, and if one is going to make a case against heresy, he must do exactly that, and not confuse doctrinal error less than heresy, with heresy, or confuse crimes that would lead to a suspicion of heresy with the crime of heresy itself.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 6, 2023 9:10:13 GMT -5
A recent coversation with a friend about China reminds me we have forgotten the underground Church in China so cruelly betrayed by bergoglio must have true Bishoos hidden in its chambers or enduring a Chinese or north korean labor camp? I dont think the NO was ever able to pollute them fully basically because of logistics. Its just a thought that I cant prove.
|
|