Post by Pacelli on Jun 27, 2017 13:47:44 GMT -5
The following was taken from a letter published on the Bellarmine Forums in which Mr. John Lane presents the argument that jurisdiction could be supplied to Antipopes when they appoint Catholics to Sees for the common good:
Here’s a translation (courtesy of Jim Larrabee) of Wilmers saying very clearly that Christ will grant jurisdiction to validate the acts of non-popes for the common good, but not for those acts by which they excommunicate others, for example. Since you haven’t read my writings, you won’t be aware that I have been saying this for at least a decade, in season and out of season. That’s a pity, given you decided to use my name a couple of hundred times in your book, and so completely misrepresented me.
There’s no difference in this context between a doubtful pope and a certainly false pope – otherwise Wilmers would be positing that all three doubtful popes were true popes, and he’d not be talking about supply because they would have ordinary jurisdiction. Talking about doubtful popes, he explicitly says that they are certainly not popes (a doubtful pope is no pope). “Indeed, he whose authority is uncertain, cannot require one to obey him for the same reason for which men are not obliged to obey a law which has not been promulgated.” And, “It is not enough that the election has been legitimate before God; it is necessary that it also be known as legitimate and as not subject to serious doubt. Analogously, it is not enough for a law to have been approved, but it is required that it have been also promulgated.” In other words, Wilmers gives exactly the same doctrine as Bellarmine, Billot, and the rest.
OK, here’s the relevant text, in context (he’s answering an objection against the doctrine that the bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, not from Christ directly:
Apply this to the Church after, say, 1958 on the hypothesis that Roncalli was not pope, and whatever is for the common good, including appointing Catholics to offices, is validated by supplied jurisdiction, and whatever constitutes an obvious act of violence against the common good (e.g. suspending Lefebvre a divinis) would be invalid. And of course, despite supplied jurisdiction sanating, act by act, whatever is for the common good, a false pope cannot validly demand that anybody obey him.
The bishops appointed in much of the East would be validly appointed (because they typically remained Catholics), and most of the bishops appointed in the West would not – because so many of them were open schismatics and/or heretics.
(John Lane, Bellarmine Forums, April 4, 2017. SOURCE )
(Quote translated from: Wilmers, Gulielmus [William], S.J. De Christi Ecclesia. Regensburg, New York, and Cincinnati: Frederick Pustet, 1897. Bk. III, chap. III, art. ii, prop. 61, obj. 5. pp. 365-66. - A thank you to forum member Eric H for tracking down the source)
There’s no difference in this context between a doubtful pope and a certainly false pope – otherwise Wilmers would be positing that all three doubtful popes were true popes, and he’d not be talking about supply because they would have ordinary jurisdiction. Talking about doubtful popes, he explicitly says that they are certainly not popes (a doubtful pope is no pope). “Indeed, he whose authority is uncertain, cannot require one to obey him for the same reason for which men are not obliged to obey a law which has not been promulgated.” And, “It is not enough that the election has been legitimate before God; it is necessary that it also be known as legitimate and as not subject to serious doubt. Analogously, it is not enough for a law to have been approved, but it is required that it have been also promulgated.” In other words, Wilmers gives exactly the same doctrine as Bellarmine, Billot, and the rest.
OK, here’s the relevant text, in context (he’s answering an objection against the doctrine that the bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, not from Christ directly:
Obj. 5. If the Supreme Pontiff conferred jurisdiction on bishops, considerable difficulties would follow. It would follow, in the first place, that in the time of the Western Schism, as long as the Pope was doubtful and therefore null, the bishops who had been confirmed by the doubtful Pope would have lacked jurisdiction, and those priests would equally have lacked jurisdiction who had been granted jurisdiction by bishops lacking jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the bishops in the Council of Constance supposed that they enjoyed jurisdiction for the purpose of settling the schism.
Resp. a. This difficulty, if it is one, weighs on everybody, since all must admit that a bishop, in order to be a legitimate pastor, must be assumed and acknowledged by the supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff. It weighs on each and every one of those who admit that jurisdiction, [even] if it is immediately conferred by consecration or by Christ, cannot nevertheless be validly exercised unless the Pontiff assigns a particular flock, that is, provides the matter.
b. In this matter, the same principles apply as those which apply in supplying jurisdiction when it is a question of a colored title, and of invincible or common error of the faithful. See above p. 257. A priest who is proclaimed as parish priest by simony lacks jurisdiction, according to the canons. But because he is thought to be the parish priest, the simony being unknown, and he has some title, although invalid, therefore he has jurisdiction, because the Church supplies for the defect. The same is to be said of a bishop chosen simoniacally and consequently, according to the canons, lacking jurisdiction; the Church here equally supplies the defect, and thus such a bishop, for the sake of the common good, obtains jurisdiction.
This is to be applied to the three doubtful Pontiffs, supposing all of them to be doubtful; but with this difference, that it is not the Church but God Himself who supplies for the defect and grants jurisdiction. Indeed, each of the obediences thought and said that its own Pontiff was legitimate, and that the two others were schismatic; and each Pontiff possessed some colored title, and in such manner that for many people it was very difficult, and is so even now, to discern which of them was truly legitimate. Hence, just as God Himself confers jurisdiction to govern the Church on the legitimately elected Pontiff, in the same way He also went on granting jurisdiction on a doubtful Pontiff on account of the invincible error of those adhering to him, to the extent necessary; he himself therefore could confer jurisdiction on the bishops adhering to him. We said "to the extent necessary," that is, for the government of the faithful who adhered to them. But it was not necessary for this purpose that, if they pronounced an anathema on the opposing side and excluded it from the Church, this exclusion should take effect. Hence it does not follow from the fact that their other acts were valid, that the act by which they excommunicated the other side was also valid.
Cf. Bellarm. De Rom. Pont. bk. 4, ch. 24. Zaccaria ...
Resp. a. This difficulty, if it is one, weighs on everybody, since all must admit that a bishop, in order to be a legitimate pastor, must be assumed and acknowledged by the supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff. It weighs on each and every one of those who admit that jurisdiction, [even] if it is immediately conferred by consecration or by Christ, cannot nevertheless be validly exercised unless the Pontiff assigns a particular flock, that is, provides the matter.
b. In this matter, the same principles apply as those which apply in supplying jurisdiction when it is a question of a colored title, and of invincible or common error of the faithful. See above p. 257. A priest who is proclaimed as parish priest by simony lacks jurisdiction, according to the canons. But because he is thought to be the parish priest, the simony being unknown, and he has some title, although invalid, therefore he has jurisdiction, because the Church supplies for the defect. The same is to be said of a bishop chosen simoniacally and consequently, according to the canons, lacking jurisdiction; the Church here equally supplies the defect, and thus such a bishop, for the sake of the common good, obtains jurisdiction.
This is to be applied to the three doubtful Pontiffs, supposing all of them to be doubtful; but with this difference, that it is not the Church but God Himself who supplies for the defect and grants jurisdiction. Indeed, each of the obediences thought and said that its own Pontiff was legitimate, and that the two others were schismatic; and each Pontiff possessed some colored title, and in such manner that for many people it was very difficult, and is so even now, to discern which of them was truly legitimate. Hence, just as God Himself confers jurisdiction to govern the Church on the legitimately elected Pontiff, in the same way He also went on granting jurisdiction on a doubtful Pontiff on account of the invincible error of those adhering to him, to the extent necessary; he himself therefore could confer jurisdiction on the bishops adhering to him. We said "to the extent necessary," that is, for the government of the faithful who adhered to them. But it was not necessary for this purpose that, if they pronounced an anathema on the opposing side and excluded it from the Church, this exclusion should take effect. Hence it does not follow from the fact that their other acts were valid, that the act by which they excommunicated the other side was also valid.
Cf. Bellarm. De Rom. Pont. bk. 4, ch. 24. Zaccaria ...
Apply this to the Church after, say, 1958 on the hypothesis that Roncalli was not pope, and whatever is for the common good, including appointing Catholics to offices, is validated by supplied jurisdiction, and whatever constitutes an obvious act of violence against the common good (e.g. suspending Lefebvre a divinis) would be invalid. And of course, despite supplied jurisdiction sanating, act by act, whatever is for the common good, a false pope cannot validly demand that anybody obey him.
The bishops appointed in much of the East would be validly appointed (because they typically remained Catholics), and most of the bishops appointed in the West would not – because so many of them were open schismatics and/or heretics.
(John Lane, Bellarmine Forums, April 4, 2017. SOURCE )
(Quote translated from: Wilmers, Gulielmus [William], S.J. De Christi Ecclesia. Regensburg, New York, and Cincinnati: Frederick Pustet, 1897. Bk. III, chap. III, art. ii, prop. 61, obj. 5. pp. 365-66. - A thank you to forum member Eric H for tracking down the source)