|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 27, 2018 20:43:35 GMT -5
Yes two...differing metephors.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jan 28, 2018 11:01:53 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. No one is faulting them for trying. It's their reaction to open, honest evaluations of the facts and the sectarian mentality that develops. You cannot ask someone to evaluate something using criteria they do not know exists or understand. At the same time those same people should not shoot the messenger nor should they default to the position that makes them in the right. People, in their nature, do not know when to keep their mouths shut. So they go on, quoting quotes they can't source, quoting men with no status in the Catholic Church, and telling other people what they have to do to be a Catholic. They disseminate bad information. I'm not even necesarily faulting them for any of this, I'm just stating that the situation exists.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jan 28, 2018 11:26:55 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. The situation is constantly changing, and each individual situation changes even more. Given the status of the situation and the places where we go for the sacraments, we must always be evaluating honestly. I suppose that is why we are discussing this in the first place! We are not necessarily looking for perfection, but seeking to make sure we are justified in our approach to the various elements of traditionalism. One example, I will not call a mass center a parish. Parishes are established by a diocese within the authority of the local ordinary. This upsets some people, but it is an emotional reaction, not one coming from a desire to hear what is true. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I had to be honest about the status of the mass center and compare it to the legitimate structure of the Church. If I had not and said, "Well, it's my parish now because I go there every Sunday," I would not be giving much effort to seeking the truth. I find it funny that sometimes after we asked so many questions about the Novus Ordo sect, that we are willing to stop once we have reached a certain point. Not that we have to have answers, but we are somewhat complacent after a certain point.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 28, 2018 11:29:01 GMT -5
introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1" In a time of prolonged sedevacantism, people go far astray without a true pope. I have thought quite a bit about the unusual groups that have emerged posing as faithful Traditionalist Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. I have identified the basic groups and what I believe is the underlying source of the problem......"
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 28, 2018 13:16:46 GMT -5
introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1" In a time of prolonged sedevacantism, people go far astray without a true pope. I have thought quite a bit about the unusual groups that have emerged posing as faithful Traditionalist Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. I have identified the basic groups and what I believe is the underlying source of the problem......" I think he missed some key groups, but overall a good article. Here are two more that should be included: 1. “ NUCs: Dogmatics non-una cum.” We say on our own non-authority that masses said by non-sedevacntist priests are objectively schismatic and are a mortal sin to assist at. Many of us say that if a Catholic defies our private judgment on this, he needs to be denied holy communion. 2. “ Sect Exaggerators” We say on our own non-authority that every Catholic, even those who profess the Faith and do not believe any heresy are part of the Conciliar sect. We say this about all SSPX, “Indult/Motu“ attendees, conservative Novus Ordo attendees, and Eastern Rite, or at least a blend of some of them, if not all of them. We say this despite the fact that the Church has not yet judged the sect, and we rely on our own private judgment of the sect’s existence and who it’s memebrhsip consists of to make determinations against individuals, that we, in almost every case know nothing about and have no direct evidence of the person professing heresy or knowingly joining the sect.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 15:49:10 GMT -5
Pacelli, thank you for your thoughtful replies. There is so much to respond to that I'm overwhelmed just thinking about it. I don't know when I will have the time to give it the attention it deserves, but I will certainly try.
...
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 15:58:15 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. But it has already been created and continues to exist even when vacated. It is the same office being re-filled by indirect appointment of the one who presently fills it. He appoints his own successor to fill the office that is vacated after he dies. There is no new office being created; it is simply being re-filled. I have thought about this at length, and I am still undecided at the present.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 16:01:03 GMT -5
As I side note, I don't know how to use the quote feature beyond the BBC code. This is making it very confusing to reply without destroying the formatting of the quote feature you are using. How can I reply using this new quote feature to separate and reply to individual lines or statements? Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 18:03:47 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. But what if there were no local ordinaries in the area to which they fled? The theological answer you are providing isn't taking into account the scope of the problem. In this case, you response is taking a historical example of one small, local problem in the Church and implying that it can be projected onto the near-universal crisis of today that is much more serious. I mean, let's put it in perspective. To advance my analogy further in the direction of our present state of affairs, imagine if those same Muslims were operating from within the structure of the so-called Catholic Church, which was preaching Sharia Law, replacing churches with mosques, and turning priests into Imams? You can't just go to your local ordinary and ask for permission: he too is a Muslim calling himself Catholic and in communion with the modern Caliphate that sits in the place of Peter and teaches Islam in the name of the Catholic Church. The bishop can't acquire formal permission anywhere from within his own rite. Historical precedents break down here: there are none. We have to look to what divine law might allow in principle, not to what it has allowed in this or that historical case. The solutions to these historical examples always appeal to normalcy in a neighboring jurisdiction or a properly-functioning hierarchy to help solve the lack of normalcy in the see in question. We don't have that luxury today. We can't answer this by saying that since he has no canonical appointment he can't possess jurisdiction, because that simply begs the question. The question is whether he can (i.e., if there is anything of divine law that prevents him from able to possess that jurisdiction) still possess that jurisdiction in absence of the formal appointment by way of indirect appointment. Saying that he doesn't possess it without this or that is assuming the very point in question. Again, first, as far as I know, the judgment of fitness is positive law, not divine law. Second, there is no local diocesan bishop in this analogy. He is exiled in a country full of Muslim impostors who are in communion and in agreement with the same Muslim impostors who kicked him out to begin with. What is the bishop to do? Is he to do nothing in the way of providing for his flock because there is no normal state of affairs? That isn't his fault or the fault of his flock. But he still occupies the office, so now another condition has been added that, as far as I know, is a positive law restriction made for the better ordering of the Church across geographical territories. But again, there is no local bishop. He is it, as far as he can tell. The requirement to have permission assumes that can be obtained, which again is a divine law requirement contingent upon the accessibility of that very permission. So while you will say, "Then he has no permission by default," I am arguing that he must have permission by default, since divine law requires he have it for the very raison d'etre of the Church's existence. The absence of permission alone is not his fault, and therefore can't be an impediment to the Church's ability to fulfill her own mission. The accessibility of formal permission impinges a restriction that can't be present in its absence, so it can't be made a necessary condition in its absence. As a teleological necessity, in the absence of formal permission, but in the presence of an absolute necessity, the permission must exist for the sake of the very purpose of the Church, provided there is nothing about the activity of the bishop which would prevent even divine law from giving him implied permission through the office of the papacy from the appointed bishop. But, see, this is my point. Like Fr. O'Reilly would have said, prior to that precedent, you could have argued, using your line of thinking, that this was impossible, since it would have been a complete novelty at the time. He wouldn't have had the authority to do this. Divine law wouldn't permit it. But an unprecedented situation created an unprecedented response that is now being used against the possibility of any new unprecedented situations that might require a further unprecedented response. And this unprecedented response of St. Athanasius told us something about the breadth of divine law. I am not saying that the rules of the Church are violated or even excepted by these responses; I am saying that the positive law of the Church is more restrictive than what divine law often provides for. In questioning what the scope of this divine law is, we can't appeal to what positive law presently says as interpreted by previous historical cases. That is to completely miss the essence of the question at hand. But if they filled former offices, they would have offices and they wouldn't have been simply invented. I know. The question of principle gets even more complex when considering delegated/vicarial jurisdiction (habitual jurisdiction delegated by an appointed bishop to another with only the implicit, not explicit, approval of Rome) as well as iterimary jurisdiction (ordinary jurisdiction automatically passing to a recipient or body of recipients upon the vacation of an episcopal see, again without the explicit approval of Rome). These present interesting precedents for ordinary jurisdiction passing to others with only the implicit approval of the Holy See. I don't know how he wouldn't in that scenario. He doesn't have the luxury of just walking the near-by church 25 miles away and knocking on the bishops door. The entire country in which he resides has been over-run. He has no one to ask or appeal to except the mind of the legislator, the purpose of the law, the raison d'etre of the Church, his obligation to his office, his duty to his flock, and the continuity of the Church. Saying that this has never been allowed isn't the same as saying that it can't be. This has never happened before, just like the Arian crisis. But the very purpose for which it could be allowed now doesn't violate the purpose for which positive law exists that prohibit it. But, once again, this bishop (1) isn't roaming about the world and (2) might actually have the office. That's what we are discussing. We can't say that his not having an office is why he can't have an office. I am asking: What about his situation prevents him per divine law from having the office that he was appointed to fill by his predecessor? The pope himself has exercised jurisdiction outside of his own see in the past, so divine law itself doesn't say that jurisdiction is inextricably tied to an arbitrary and transitory geographical set of coordinates, that tomorrow might be underwater and now, in a state of emergency, needs tob e moved. This is a highly materialistic view of the Church. Divine law gives the "right;" positive law gives the "where" to execute that right, as arbitrary and transitory as it is. It isn't God who is directly telling the bishops where they can exercise their authority; it is fallible men who tell them where. If the latter interferes with the execution of the former, then we are saying that God has given us power that interferes with His own. If, in the first century after Christ's death, St. Paul had established a see in Gaul, which entire country had subsequently been overtaken by the sea, are you saying that, a formal request had been sent and formal permission could be received from St. Peter many years later, the bishop of that see couldn't continue to operate on the shores closest to where his see was? Again, God's law gives the jurisdiction, simpliciter, to men, who by act of positive law attach to that permission a set of geographic coordinates for the sake of the social organization, political structuring, and regional ordering of the Church. But the question of the ordering of the Church is moot when the entire structure of the Church has been over-run. That doesn't give a bishop authority carte blanche to do whatever he will or go where ever he wants, since the purpose of his action must be subject to the purpose for which that action is necessary; however, in the absence of the positive law of the men who direct that right to be performed here or there, I know of no divine law that would automatically cease to continue the execution of his jurisdiction if, by no fault of his own, he were deprived of the physical occupancy of those geographical coordinates. And why should it? The case you mentioned earlier, which was corrected by the Council of Trent, involved bishops who fled their sees and then, based on some failure on their parts, did not receive permission from certainly-Catholic local ordinaries. In the case of our bishop, there is no permission attainable at the present. He is appointing him for the office of the diocese of Cincinnati. He just can't physically occupy that see at the moment because (1) it has been destroyed and replaced with a mosque, leaving no churches at all in the area, and (2) he will be killed if he returns. He either (a) returns only to be killed, leaving his flock without a bishop, or (b) provides for their spiritual welfare in the meantime where he is in whatever way he can. Again, this is the case according to positive law. We are talking about the case in which this positive law itself interferes with divine law: the Church, by means of positive law only, fails to provide for the spiritual welfare of her members. He can't do any of this. There is no local clergy, except others who have been kicked out of their own dioceses; there are no neighboring bishops, except others who have been kicked out of their own sees; and he can't reside in a place where his churches don't exist and he is forbidden to return to. But once again, that foundation is the divine law of the Church. The other conditions upon which you make this subject are accidental, insofar as they are situational contingencies that may or may not exist in this or that case. What concerns this topic, is what is permitted in the absence of these conditions, according to divine law. I believe the divine law continues to supply even in the absence of these situational contingencies that can't, by nature, impinge restrictions upon divine law. Well, again, his "winging" it with the laity assumes he has conditions that your answers assume. What is your answer in the absence of these conveniences that overlook the seriousness of the state of affairs? Yes, but His will is carried out by the actions of His followers. After all, the faith didn't spread to the far corners of the world (thus fulfilling a necessary condition of the Church's divine mark of Catholicity) by Quietist apostles. They didn't just say, "Well, God gave us His word, so He must be keeping it with or without our efforts." No, He gave us His word that we, by our actions, would fulfill His promises, thus evidencing to the world His divine protection over those who labored to fulfill His will and thus securing His promises. We don't just sit back and not do anything, as a challenge to God to fulfill His promises. That's not how it began, and it certainly isn't how it should end. What if future papal usurpers move on to successfully compromise the Eastern Rites in much the same way? Would you reconsider the traditionalist argument, or would you apostatize? Well, if his plan to simply work with other bishops hadn't worked, he wouldn't have had an opportunity to go back and time and "try again," so to speak. It would have been too late for him to perpetuate the traditional Catholic Faith and sacraments. Hindsight is 20/20. We can't say he shouldn't have done the latter simply because maybe the former would have worked. If God did in fact will that he assist in the preservation of the Faith, willing not to allow your plan to succeed, but Apb. Lefebvre had not done so in the name of an idealistic and highly simplified solution that, in reality, would have probably taken decades, he risked the souls of those who needed absolutely valid sacraments and the nourishment of the traditional Catholic Faith in the meantime by simply failing to take an action that God might have wanted him to take. It almost seems your position assumes it is correct in order to prove it. It blames the traditional Catholic response for doing something un-traditional before it has proved it un-traditional from anything beyond historical precedent and positive law. It rests the entire continuity of the Faith not upon the lifeblood of the Church (the provision of the sacraments as dispensers of grace) but instead upon the political cunning of an old bishop. If Cardinal Ottaviani's microphone was shut off by the Modernists in the middle of speaking out against them impious doctrines, Abp. Lefebvre had little reason to believe his own intellectual prowess was going to be God's instrument in changing a free-masonic plot 200 years in the making. Was it possible? Sure. But it would have been more than a little presumptuous to hang everything--even the faithful's future access to authentic sacraments--on the notion that he was going to suddenly reverse 200 years of plotting and infiltration rather than do what has always been done: continue to provide access to the grace of God. But that didn't happen, and because that didn't happen, traditional clergy did what they did. Because nothing about this is comfortable. I moved away from a very well-paying job to a new city just to be near a traditional parish. To say that the man who has the temporary protection of a lifeboat doesn't desire the re-emergence of the ship to rescue him is not accurate. I would be careful before blaming the sins of individuals on the response itself. I mean, the same argument says that the Catholic Church's teaching on confession is to blame for the repeated sins of its members, since it has lulled them into a state of complacency and security. Just because someone abuses something doesn't mean the thing is responsible for the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 29, 2018 13:42:52 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
Yes, of course, I agree that an existing office remains, even when vacant, but that’s not what I’m talking about. What office do the traditional bishops have? What is the name of the office? That’s my question. If the office cannot he identified, then it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist, then someone made it up.
Every office in the Catholic Church has a title to the office, bishop of Albany, Archbishop of New York, bishop of Omaha, etc. I am asking you to give me the title, the name of the office of the traditional bishops, and as you and I know they have no title, to agree that there is no office being held by these men.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 29, 2018 15:01:31 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
I did answer that, there have been precedents set by St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius, that in such a crisis, other bishops could appoint local bishops with the tacit permission of the pope, an act supplied by the Church.
INPEFESS wrote:
The problem was not as dire in the 60’s and 70’s. Many orthodox members of the hierarchy were alive then, but they were scattered and had no leader to call for a council. I think that Archbishop Lefebvre was one that could have led us out of this crisis, but his actions, which were truly speaking inactions in what mattered, only extended it.
I will be clear about this point, while Lefebvre was certainly one who loved the Catholic Faith, his actions in response to this crisis were haphazard, weak, and misguided. The preservation of holy orders is not a response to rampant heresy in the hierarchy up to and including the man calling himself pope. It also needs to be mentioned again that the holy orders he was preserving were not equivalent to the holy orders that always existed in the Church, he was creating a new type of priest, one with valid orders, but no commission from the Church to use those orders.
INPEFESS wrote:
The smaller crises that happened give us a blueprint for how we should respond to any crisis, large or small. The traditionalist reaction to this crisis was a new reaction, with no basis in theology, law, history or tradition, therefore it must be suspect, at a very minimum.
INPEFESS wrote:
The bishop in this hypothetical would have clearly lost his office, so he would be no different than the Arian bishops whose sees were in reality vacant, which gave St. Athanasius the pretext to take action and fill those sees with Catholic Bishops.
INPEFESS wrote:
St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius did not have formal or explicit permission to act in other dioceses either, yet they did, and they consecrated and appointed bishops in these sees.
INPEFESS wrote:
I disagree, see comment above. The situation we have been in and the one that existed during the Arian crisis are identical, in most of the essentials.. It’s just the response that has been different. St. Athanasius’ and Archbishop Lefebvre’s responses were radically different.
INPEFESS wrote:
Do you believe that Divine law permits bishops to consecrate mission-less and office-less bishops to operate in the Catholic Church doing whatever they want with no authority governing them or the organizations they lead? How does this square with Scripture and Tradition? The traditionalist model is something completely new and it does not fit in with the model as given by God, the Divine Constitution of the Church.
INPEFESS wrote:
This crisis began with an intact hierarchy, which has only gotten smaller and weaker as time has gone on. The confusion, and perhaps in many cases weakness, of the remaining faithful bishops has left us in what appears to be a leaderless situation. If even one courageous faithful member of the hierarchy would take a stand, the entire Conciliar sect could crumble. He could appoint neighboring bishops, who could then appoint more bishops to their neighboring sees, and the process could continue until many or most of the worlds sees were filled. He could also call forth a council of bishops and publicly denounce the sect, declare the Petrine see vacant and in collaboration with the Roman clerics, the Council could elect a new pope.
This crisis could have ended at any time with only one courageous bishop to lead the way with a Catholic response. We as Catholics are akin to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we could have escaped from this real life nightmare at any time, all we needed was to use the tool that worked to end it. Instead, as these measures were not taken, even by the few courageous bishops who took stand against the sect, the crisis has lingered. The only way to end this crisis according to the ordinary methods that the Church has is what I just wrote above. There is no other ordinary way. The extraordinary way would be God’s direct involvement, and perhaps that is how it may end.
The sect inherently knows its weak, it’s like a puffed up giant hideous looking monster that can be killed by just one shot, but all are afraid to take it on, as it appears unbeatable. IMO, Paul VI, John Paul II and their collaborators deeply feared Lefebvre, he had the power to end them, but instead, he chose to build a fort inside the enemy kingdom and work to coexist with the enemy by maintaining a weak resistance and through negotiation.
The sects entire existence is built on a foundation of lies. It lives in the darkness and if light shines upon it will expose it and kill it. The hierarchy of the Church are the commissioned men by God to defend the Church and the Faith, it is their duty and role to end this crisis. If the Catholic laity are to do anything, it is to pray and petition the hierarchy that still exists to act, to once again act like successors of the Apostles, which they are, and end this crisis using the tools God them.
INPEFESS wrote:
Do you believe (habitual) jurisdiction is possessed by one who has no claim to it, no office?
INPEFESS wrote:
In order to have jurisdiction one must have an office. If one claims an office, he must demonstrate that claim. I have already said I agree with you on the concept of indirect appointments presuming the tacit will of the last pope being supplied by the Church, But, as I also said, this is not what has happened in traditionalism. If you disagree, then I ask you again to name the office to which you are speaking, and which traditionalist bishops have claimed that office, and support this with evidence the basis of the claim.
more later...
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 29, 2018 20:27:02 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote: Yes, I agree about the judgment of fitness, I am not claiming it is Divine law. I am however, asserting that the mission given by the Church through the pope or the local ordinary and received by a priest to use his holy orders and preach in the Church is a matter of Divine law. It is expressly taught in sacred scripture. I just posted two of these references along with approved Catholic commentary along with Fr. McGovern’s explanation from the “ Manual of the Holy Catholic Church,” in which he relies on numerous scriptures. Linked HEREI think it is reasonable to argue that his acts in the new territory in which he has fled to would be supplied by the Church. His fleeing to a vacant diocese, however, would not mean he carries his jurisdiction with him, that much is clear. As I wrote above, the options at his disposal for the survival of the local Church in that situation are that he could, to the best of his ability, reach out to other local ordinaries if they are alive and able to be contacted along with the local legitimate clergy from the diocese he is now living in, and work with them on choosing a successor for the diocese he is residing in. This would be done with the idea that the pope, if he were alive or able to be contacted, would support the choice, as it was done by his own (or previous Popes) chosen bishops and the new bishop was accepted as the legitimate bishop by the local clergy. I agree that that the fault is not his or that of his flock, but I am asserting that the problem has a remedy that is in line with numerous precedents, the law, and theology. The fact that this solution to our dilemma was ignored in favor of the traditionalist model in our present situation, is not the fault of the laity, the fault (even if it was through ignorance based on a lack of understanding) is on those who came up with this new and novel idea and made it the standard of how we react to the Conciliar sect in this crisis. More later...
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 30, 2018 12:47:00 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
After the death of the Apostles, their successors no longer enjoyed universal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was limited to defined local areas, and if the bishop left his territory, he did not take his jurisdiction with him.
To assert that bishops have jurisdiction outside of their territories is a novelty and is directly contradicted by the explanations of the theologians of how the structure of the Church is defined, the Divine Constitution of the Church.
It it is only the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, who enjoys universal jurisdiction. Every other bishop with jurisdiction is limited in authority. The successors of the apostles as individual bishops do not enjoy the same commission as the original apostles. It exists with them only as a corporate body, not as individuals.
I would be be happy to provide sources on this if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 30, 2018 13:22:59 GMT -5
INPEFESS wrote:
What office is he claiming that gives him jurisdiction over the flock in the new territory? The bishop in your hypothetical is the bishop of Cincinnati, he is not the bishop of the territory in which he has fled. He according to this hypothetical, is in a vacant diocese.
The Church’s existence can never fail, as Our Lord, the ultimate leader of the Church is in control over it, and He promised us that it would not fail.
INPEFESS wrote:
The fact of his lack of an office in the new territory remains. He cannot just transfer offices on his own authority, resign from his office in Cincinnati and assume the office of Bishop of diocese X.
I have answered, though, that I believe he could continue to act in many ways with jurisdiction supplied by the Church, hearing confessions, ordaining local clergy in other dioceses, and even in this grave situation, I believe it is justifiable, as I mentioned above that if the Pope was dead or not able to be contacted for a long time, in collaboration with any remaining ordinary bishops and the local clergy, he could appoint bishops to sees, with the presumed will of the pope, in the same manner as was done by St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius.
INPEFESS wrote:
Yes, as I said above, I believe the bishop could act, but his actions must not go against the Divinely constituted structure of the Church. Can the bishop of diocese X extend his habitual jurisdiction over any area of the Church in which he goes? I believe such an idea is directly opposed to Catholic teaching. No bishop has ever claimed this, even in times of emergency. Even the schismatics, “Eastern Orthodox,” or “Old Catholics,” recognize this truth that bishops only govern over specific local territories, and do not have jurisdiction over other territories or any place in the universal Church.
The vacant diocese needs it own bishop, who is a successor of the apostles, not an office-less bishop who was consecrated to be a sacramental Bishop who has no right as he lacks a commission from the Church to teach, govern, or sanctify (I am not speaking of requests of the laity, merely the bishop’s inherent rights) the faithful .
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 20:46:44 GMT -5
Pacelli, I appreciate your thoughts on the question of habitual jurisdiction. I said I was going to set it aside in the name of pursuing what I believe to be the more important question of supplied jurisdiction, but then I unfairly asked your opinion about habitual jurisdiction as it applied to a certain example, which unintentionally returned the discussion to habitual jurisdiction. Again, let us put aside the question of habitual jurisdiction (about which you may very well be correct) and focus on the issue of supplied jurisdiction. I apologize for giving the appearance of dodging your responses. I think you are probably right about habitual jurisdiction, but while I do still have contentions with your responses, I nevertheless really do have limited time to discuss these issues, and so I need to focus on the most essential aspects of them. I am going to keep this discussion exclusively about traditional clergy having material apostolic succession only and approach it from the point of view of ordinary jurisdiction supplied by the Church only for the duration of individual acts performed with the mind and intention of the Church in fulfilling her purpose and mission.
Essentially, here is the state of affairs as it exists today. The Bark of Peter, the captain, and the crew have been overthrown by mutiny. The captain has been killed, most of the crew has gone along with the mutiny in part or in full, and the remnant crew and passengers faithful to them, who completely resisted the mutiny, have been marooned on a remote island. The crew on the island has formal apostolic succession to provide for the needs of the passengers. But after decades have passed and the Bark of Peter has not returned, the crew is concerned for the future needs of the passengers after the marooned crew has died. In accordance with the very purpose of the crew, but without access to permission from the Bark of Peter, the crew, not able to pass on formal apostolic succession, passes on material apostolic succession, only, and validly delegates new crew members not to rule over the passengers with the same authority and scope but to simply carry on their work of providing for the future needs of the passengers until the ship returns.
While it is most likely true that the traditional clergy lack formal apostolic succession, it isn’t by their own action that they do. Their use of their faculties in harmony with the purpose of the Church stands guilty of no omission of commission by which they lack canonical appointment, office, or commission. In appeal to the very purpose of the Church, they continue to provide for the spiritual needs of the faithful as material instruments of grace, only--what the Church calls a sacramental ministry. Those with formal apostolic succession have empowered them as valid channels by which jurisdiction can be supplied for each act in accordance with the raison d’etre and divine law of the Church, until such a time as the Church’s structure is reclaimed by Catholics. We can theorize all day long about what could have, would have, and should have been done during the extremely confusing time following the council, but at the end of the day, souls today still need access to true, certain, doubtless sacraments. I don’t know of any divine law that would forbid this action so necessary for the Church to fulfill her mission in certain parts of the world where it had been effectively denied. Traditional Catholic clergy, while possessing material succession only, are but a shell of the Church built by those with formal apostolic succession and through which grace can still be channeled to as many of the faithful as possible in order to fulfill the Church’s mission in spite of the modernists’ attempts to deprive them of it.
Traditional priests (at least many of them) aren’t claiming that the inability of the Church to grant them formal apostolic succession therefore grants it to them by default, due to her “intention” to give it to them during an emergency; instead, they are claiming that the inability of the Church to grant them formal apostolic succession at a time when she otherwise would intend it for the salvation of souls doesn’t mean that she wills that their materially apostolic faculties remain impotent and useless in extending her essence to those who need her most as well as fulfilling—albeit to a much more limited, yet always noble, degree—her intention to realize her divine purpose: the salvation of souls. You will say that since these traditional bishops have no office in the Church, they are not permitted to even provide for the long-term spiritual needs of the faithful. But I might ask you, rhetorically: What divine law of the Church prohibits the salvation of souls by those who seek to achieve it in accordance with the true mind of the Church? Certainly, no law of man can prohibit it; no less can God’s own law prohibit it. The action of the Church did not cut them off from formal apostolic succession; no action of the clergy (well, not all of them—I agree with you that many traditional clergy have cut themselves off by their own actions) has cut them off from formal apostolic succession; what divine law, then, prohibits them from being used by God as hollow instruments of grace through which grace passes for the salvation of souls?
Is it the will of the tree that if an evil man cuts off one its branches against the will of the tree that the severed branch should prohibit the nutrients still within it from reaching the living leaves still attached to it for as long as possible? The tree wills the reattachment of the branch. It wills to reconnect the direct flow of nutrients to the branch. It wills the life of the leaves attached to the branch. But the action of an enemy has prevented the tree from fulfilling its purpose for that branch: the life of those leaves. How can we say that, due to the actions of the enemy, the tree would will the severed branch to deny the nutrients within it to reach its leaves and let them die, effectively willing the branch not to fulfill the tree’s own will for the branch? It is a logical absurdity. If you have 10 speakers hardwired to your computer, each with Bluetooth capabilities, and all playing the same song in different rooms for your guests; but, unbeknownst to you, in one room an evil man rips out the cable to the speaker to deprive those in one room from hearing the music; would not you as the host make sure to keep your Bluetooth switch activated on the computer, so that were this to happen the music can be automatically transmitted wirelessly, by your will and intention, in spite of the man's desire to keep the guests from hearing the song? Would it not be your intention to keep your Bluetooth activated so that, even if someone tripped over the cable, thereby disconnecting it, the music would still be able to heard by your guests for their enjoyment without interruption? As laughable an analogy as this might be, it follows from logic and common sense that we would take every precaution not to let an enemy thwart out will for our guests. God's provision for His children is no less logical.
I think an important distinction needs to be made regarding traditional clergy’s use by the Church in the actual realization of her universal purpose. On the one hand, there is the question of formal versus material apostolic succession; on the other, there is the question of criminal penalty versus the absence of criminal penalty by which one with formal apostolic succession loses it. This is significant because I believe it affects how the mind of the Church is discerned in the extent to which she may use her clergy in the realization of her purpose by the supplying of jurisdiction. Obviously, if a cleric with formal apostolic succession commits or omits some act by which the Church formally punishes him, she intentionally and explicitly deprives him of formal apostolic succession and restricts his usefulness in providing for the salvation of the faithful to only those who approach him for the sacraments. Her decision on the extent to which she punishes the cleric is affected by her end: she punishes him to greatest extent he can be punished to accomplish the purpose of the punishment without unduly depriving the faithful of the spiritual benefits the Church exists to provide. It would be contrary to her divine purpose, for example, were she to publicly excommunicate vitandi the only cleric in an entire country for a minor infraction for which a simple penance, replacement, removal, discipline, suspension, deprivation, or punishment may have accomplished the same purpose without depriving the faithful of the sacraments. While you may still disagree, it seems unlikely to me, in the absence of such a crime and the absence of such a penalty, that clergy who, by no fault of their own, possess material apostolic succession only, due to the actions of an enemy to deprive the Church of her ability to fulfil her intention and purpose—the salvation of souls—, and who are acting in accordance with the mind of the Church to fulfil her raison d’etre and purpose of their priestly faculties, that the Font of Charity, Ark of Salvation, and Spotless Bride of Christ would intend to deprive her spiritual benefits to these souls entrusted to their care, due to an enemy’s violent and forceful restriction of her ability to provide these clergy with canonical appointments. While this doesn’t of itself grant formal apostolic succession, our knowledge that, according to her nature, her intention would be to provide clergy with formal apostolic succession for the sake of her suffering children, but due to the strangling of an enemy she is forcefully subdued and unable to explicitly express this intention to provide for them, provides us some insight into her mind and intention to will that those who, by no fault of their own, have the necessary faculties to fulfill her intention but lack her explicit permission to do so should actually accomplish it, respecting their limits, of course, not by assuming a power they don’t have but by using one they do. Lacking ecclesiastic right to accomplish this mission, then, they appeal to the divine right to do so, in the name of the intention of the one who wills the means only on the condition of the end, not the end only on the condition of the means.
Consider this same point made by Mahoney citing the Holy Office in writing about habitual jurisdiction for the schismatic Orthodox: " 'It is not expedient that those confirmed by schismatic priests be anointed again after they have returned to unity; to wit: The opinion is that in particular cases the Bishop should inform himself of the precise location at which the converts were confirmed. If it was in Bulgaria or in Cyprus . . . or in another place where that faculty has been expressly revoked, they must be reconfirmed absolutely. If in Valachia . . . or in another place in which it was not expressly revoked, he may rest satisfied' [Holy Office, 5 July, 1853]. Thus the Church considers schismatical confirmation by a simple priest to be valid in those places where his powers have not been withdrawn. The argument is that if the Church has not withdrawn from schismatical priests their power to confirm, it follows that their power to grant absolution has not been withdrawn either; for the latter is more necessary for souls than the former. (l'Ami du Clergé, 1927, p. 569 [emphasis added].) These schismatical priests accordingly draw their jurisdiction from the Church, through their bishops and patriarchs, exactly as they did before the schism. The Church has not wished to deprive them of jurisdiction for the greater good of souls, and one can discover no act on the part of the authority of the Church which can be interpreted as a deprivation of those powers" (Mahoney, Rev. E.J. Questions and Answers: The Sacraments. London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne, 1947. pp. 225-27 [emphasis added]). Even though the case being examined is a different one from our own, he gives schismatic clergy more leeway than traditional priests are being given in this discussion. Take notice of the two principles to which the sources appeal in answering this question (italicized above): (1) the greater good of souls and (2) an appeal to the mind of the Church in accomplishing this end by the absence of any "act on the part of the authority of the Church which can be interpreted as a deprivation of those powers." Those same principles, if they are useful for answering the question of jurisdiction for schismatics, are certainly useful for answering the question of those who, far from schismatic, are marooned and out of the reach of the Church, so to speak, by no fault of their own.
Consider the opinion of Fr. Francis Miasciewicz who, in his doctoral dissertation on supplied jurisdiction, wrote similarly of this true, indirect jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself for the good of the faithful: "6. In reference to origin, jurisdiction is either true or false. It is true whenever it really exists, whether it be directly true because it is founded upon a genuine title, or whether it be indirectly true when, lest in its absence grave harm redound to the faithful, it is supplied by the Church because of the common good. Jurisdiction is false, if in reality it does not exist at all, neither because of the presence of a true, genuine title nor because of a title indirectly conferred by the Church for purposes of supplying the deficient jurisdiction 54" (Rev. F. S. Miasciewicz, J.C.L., Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, p.17). [The relevant footnote: "54 J. Kelly, The jurisdiction of the confessor (Catholic University of America, Canon Law Studies, n. 43, Washington, D. C., 1927), pp. 5-6. Maroto, Institutiones, I, 574.] Not only does he say the Church supplies jurisdiction indirectly for the sake of souls, but he also states (as a corollary of the negative disjunction in his statement) that the Church supplies them with a true title. He goes on to point out those who are barred from all jurisdiction, even this indirect suppletory jurisdiction, and explains that the reason is due to the positive intention of the Church to exclude them, due to their own transgressions: "However, returning to the cleric, who after all is the ordinary recipient of jurisdictional power, the reader should keep a few other points clearly in mind. The censured, heretics and schismatics are not fit subjects of jurisdiction, inasmuch as their transgression has placed them outside the pale of active membership in the Church. Such persons are always forbidden to exercise jurisdictional power under the sanction that such an exercise will be an unlawful act. However, not always are their acts invalid. As canons 2265, § 1, n.2, 2275, and 2283 explictly state, it is only when such a person is a vitandus, or when a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been executed against him that his jurisdictional acts will be invalid" (Rev. F. S. Miasciewicz, J.C.L., Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, p.19). Notice that the reason he says they are barred from receiving a title (even indirectly) from the supply of the Church isn't because they are deprived from access to the vine due to no action of their own, as though the Church deprives them by default; it is due to the fact that they, by their own actions, have cut themselves off from the Church. In light of the absence of any law absolutely forbidding certain traditional priests from receiving jurisdiction indirectly, as well as the presence of circumstances by which they must, then if the Church is true to her nature and purpose, there is no doubt, in my mind, that the principle being expounded here is very real and true: a jurisdictional title is indirectly true when, lest in its absence grave harm redound to the faithful, it is supplied by the Church because of the common good. The question is whether it applies to certain traditional clergy. In my opinion, I can't think of a better case in which it would apply.
Writing in this same vein, Fr. Miasciewicz continues explaining the purview and application of this principle: "However, granted that the intricate jurisdictional system in the Church today has been prompted by the Church’s desire to safeguard the Church and the faithful against the inroads of duplicity and incompetency, in a word, to promote the good order of the Church, then on the other hand certain extraordinary conditions cause the invalidity of the acts performed by one jurisdictionally incompetent demand that the Church let down the bars, relax the strictness of her jurisdictional sanctions and make special provisions for the validity of the acts performed under such extraordinary circumstances. For, as Kearney observed,8 it will escape no one that a series of invalid acts, posited by an unauthorized agent, whether maliciously or in good faith, especially when distributed over a long period of time, will raise havoc in society. And to forestall such dangers and calamities,9 provided that the necessary conditions are verified, namely, common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or of law,10 the necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. (P.23-24) [...] Canon 209 is an instance in the Code which reveals that the Church does supply in conditions of common error or of a positive and probable doubt of fact or of law. In virtue of this supplying, the Church may grant jurisdiction to one who until now has not possessed any,12 or to one who has some jurisdictional power but receives an extension of the same.13 (P.25) [...] Without the usual test of the candidate and the subsequent approval by a responsible superior, the Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction. And yet one must not lose sight of the fact that there are other instances in the Code of extraordinary grants or extensions of jurisdiction. Such an instance, for example, occurs in canon 882 where the power of jurisdiction is granted to any and every priest, regardless of his personal status, to absolve any penitent from all censures and sins no matter how they may be reserved,23 provided that there be a probable danger of death. Similarly, in canon 883 there is a prorogation of jurisdictional power on the sea to those who in their territory are already approved confessors. Likewise, similar extensions in regard to dispensation from matrimonial impediments and to assistance at marriage are evident in canons 1098, § 2, and 1043-1045. Other canons also make liberal allowances on the part of the legislator when the spiritual welfare of the penitent is permitted to outweigh the advantage of strict consistency in the law.24 Thus canon 207, § 2, states that jurisdiction granted for the internal forum is still validly exercised if through inadvertence the priest has not noticed that the time for his faculties has expired or that he has taken care of the number of cases for which he had faculties. Canon 2247, § 3, maintains the efficacy of absolutions from certain reserved censures if and when given by priests ignorant of the reservation. Like these canons, canon 209 reveals the aim of the legislator to provide for the good of the faithful. But whereas each of the other canons is restricted." (P.28-29)[emphasis added]
In other words, the absence of a positive intention to do something doesn’t necessarily entail the presence of a negative intention not to. For example, let’s say your house is burning down and your parents tell you not to do anything or go anywhere without their permission, but as they leave to go save your baby brother upstairs, you see your little sister in the corner about to be engulfed in flames, should you not save your little sister from death simply because your parents didn’t say you could? Obviously, it is their intention to save all their children or they wouldn’t be going upstairs to save your baby brother. Your parents didn’t see your little sister about to be engulfed in flames and so they didn't specifically tell you not to rescue her; instead, to keep you from harm, they simply told you not to do anything unless they told you to. But since they are gone at the moment and aren’t present to tell you to save your little sister, without their explicit permission, you appeal to their intention in the name of fulfilling their will--not assuming the authority proper to the parent, running around trying to put the fire out, scrambling about trying to save everything you can, or ordering that other siblings go here or there, but instead using the power of a rescuer, only. Of course, this scenario is historically unprecedented for you, because the last time this happened the fire department was present to rescue your little sister instead. But this time, they are not. While your parents might come back in time to rescue your little sister before she is dead, the severity of the circumstances leave you with no reason to believe that will happen. You rescue your sister without the explicit permission of your parents to do so, or she dies.
As informal as all of this is, I think it provides insight into the state of the question. While the extent of this course of action is certainly novel in history due to the historical novelty of the situation, every situation is novel the first time it happens to a new extent, and hence every increased degree of the response is novel the first time the situation happens. But I’m not sure I understand how this response could be novel in principle. While divine law necessitates an apostolic commission to rule, it doesn’t require an apostolic commission to be used by the Church for the salvation of souls; a higher divine law commands that. It applies to each and every one of us, according to our means. After all, as a matter of principle, the Church already makes use of suspended, schismatic, and even heretical clergy, who have severed themselves from the vine by their own fault, as hollow instruments of grace for the good of the faithful in accordance with the purpose of the Church and the fulfilment of her mission. All the much more should she, then, in principle, make use of clergy, who as hollow instruments of grace for the good of the faithful in accordance with the purpose of the Church and the fulfilment of her mission, by no action of their own, are violently severed from access to the vine by an enemy. Both lacking formal apostolic succession, the only difference between the two is the extent of their usefulness as understood by the mind of the Church. While the interdicted, schismatic, and heretic have been lawfully forbidden by the Church’s positive intention from making use of their priestly faculties unless the approached by the faithful, traditional clergy (at least not those who have violated divine law or refused to act in accordance with it) have not been forbidden by the Church’s positive action and intention from making use of their priestly faculties for the good of the faithful in accordance with the purpose of the Church and the fulfillment of her mission. While the degree to which they are used by the Church varies significantly according to her own intention, the principle is categorically the same.
Edited to add quotations for clarity.
|
|