It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:47 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Facing Hard Questions 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Facing Hard Questions
I was wondering what the response would be to the following article posted on Dr. Drolesky's website: especially, the last heading on Salvation?

It gives one pause to think that there is no Apostolic Hierarchy (identifiable, that is) anywhere. Any thoughts?

http://www.christorchaos.com/FacingHard ... Smith.html

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:31 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
Teresa, what a post!
I'm trying to pick my jaw up off the floor!! :shock:
My reaction is: WOW!!!

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
St. Athanasius gave some interesting words related to the article

That if the faithful be reduced to a handful, they are the Church.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

I might be missing something, and I do miss many things, but one wonders- What is the " hard" facts of this article? It is outlining exactly what most see is the current situation in the Church today.

The opposite view- the Catholic Church never taught the True Faith, until the " renewal" of Vatican 2.

So which position is the " harder" to take ?

And while the current state of the Church is a sad state to be sure, God has not abandoned us, we have the True Faith, Mass and Sacraments.


In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post Facing hard questions
I have considered most if not all of what Fr. Smith proffered in his docier, here published, long before reading his words. At times I have embraced these conclusions in anger... at other times, I have kept them at arm's length out of fear. I eagerly await Mssrs. Lane and Daly's responses as I have respect for their charity and courage as laymen seeking to offer guidance. I defer to the import of St. Therese of Avila's rebuke to the Evil One when tempted to unbelief or disobedience..." I believe all that Holy Mother Church teaches"... period. By what authority does Fr. Smith place these potential conclusions in the public domain? I sincerely, recognizing my own weakness and ignorance, look forward to the advice and understanding and musings of others on this forum regarding this post.

Surely among the least of HIS brethren,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:34 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

I might be missing something, and I do miss many things, but one wonders- What is the " hard" facts of this article? It is outlining exactly what most see is the current situation in the Church today.

The opposite view- the Catholic Church never taught the True Faith, until the " renewal" of Vatican 2.

So which position is the " harder" to take ?

And while the current state of the Church is a sad state to be sure, God has not abandoned us, we have the True Faith, Mass and Sacraments.


In Xto,
Vincent


I think the Hard Fact of the article is the sede position of invalidating the new sacraments. By so doing, the Church no longer exists. The idea that the Church is a remnant of the faithful is not what the Church herself has said about herself. She must remain manifestly visibly until the end of time and part of that visibility is an apostolic hierarchy. The sede bishops, as good-willed as they all are, do not represent the Church. They are not an apostolic hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and can never become so by themselves, not matter how many of them there are. This has to be understood at its deepest level. By so positing the invalidity of the new sacraments the Church has lost all means to restore herself. This is a profoundly important point.

In addition, the Church cannot remain for decades without the source of unity which is the Pope, as well as the only source of apostolic jurisdiction. This contradicts everything the Church says about herself. Most sedes try to dismiss this absolutely crucial discussion by stating, "well we can't know all the answers". If the sedes have the absolute conviction that they can decide who is and who is not the pope, what is and what is not necessary for valid sacraments, what does and what does not belong to the ordinary, universal magisterium; issues that demand the most rigorous philosophical, theological, canonical education (which certainly does not mean being home-schooled in these disciplines, but rather being instructed under the watchful eye of instructors, themselves learned, with the ability to guide and correct); they certainly can't skirt answering, or at least attempting to answer, how the Church regains apostolicity where none exists. (I think we can dismiss the 'lone bishop in the gaol' of China theory, as that was already tried for the Soviet Union before the 'breakup' and found totally without foundation).

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

So do you think the a " church" teaching open heresy, is in fact the Catholic Church? I would like you to please answer this " hard" question.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
Quote:
She must remain manifestly visibly until the end of time and part of that visibility is an apostolic hierarchy.


The Church is manifestly visible, at least among the Traditional Catholics and I am fairly sure includes the Traditional Bishops. The sede may be vacant but the hierarchy is there in SSPX, CMRI, SSPV and others I do not know about. We may be far from being organized like the newvatican but we certainly have the ingredients to be the Church that Christ founded on earth.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I think we can dismiss the 'lone bishop in the gaol' of China theory, as that was already tried for the Soviet Union before the 'breakup' and found totally without foundation).


Dear Teresa,

How can you dismiss this possible solution so rashly? Do you know something I don't that leads you to make such a firm conclusion?

Teresa, I don't have all the answers and I don't know how God will resolve this great problem but, resolve it He will in His own way and at His own time. I trust in God and in His Church. I don't need to have all of the answers nor do I feel the need to worry about them. I know that the NO church is not the Catholic Church and that Ratzinger CAN'T be pope. This is not my pet theory it is a fact that an heretic is not a Catholic and a pope must hold the Catholic faith. I'm sorry but there is no way around it. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers I just KNOW that God will show us the way. I have a feeling that when all is said and done and this mess is all sorted out we will see that the solution will be something that no one expected or anticipated and we will look in retrospect and realize how ignorant we really were.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Er, excuse me, csibf, but what's this about the trad bishops being the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I'd like to query that very strongly and I believe most of the trad bishops would support me in doing so.

The trad bishops are validly consecrated and can administer valid confirmation and ordination, but they have no authority.

The apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See. The trad bishops haven't got it.

Teresa is of course way out when she claims that the Church has said that she cannot be reduced to a tiny surviving minority and when she sees some big problem in the invalidity of several of the new sacraments. And she is inconsistent when she reproaches sedevacantists with excessive certainty on such issues when she is expressing with very great certainty her opinions unsupported by any proof at all. But on the "where is the hierarchy" problem, she is right that there is a real difficulty.

I don't think the difficulty is insuperable, but there can be no solution to it in men who have valid epicsopal orders but no power to govern the Church.

A relevant thought occurred to me recently: the Gospels give the impression that the Sanhedrin condemned Our Lord unanimously: a total defection of the existing hierarchy and ordinary magisterium of the Old Testament Church.

Yet in fact we find that several of its members, despite appearances, did not really defect: St Jospeh of Arimathea, Nicodemus and probably Gamaliel - all saints of the Catholic Church. They may have been evasive or prevaricated. They may have fled and hidden. But they did not in fact apostatise, even though their fidelity was for a time invisible.

There is thus a historical precedent for a period, corresponding to that of Our Lord's Passion and Death, in which the sole official hierarchy seemed to have unanimously defected. And there is a precedent for the fact that this appearance was in fact misleading.

John Daly


Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post the Church provides the solution
Dear Teresa,

I agree with everything that Dr. Tardguno has said above, but I would like to add a few comments as well.

This situation boils down fundamentally to an act of Faith in the words of Our Lord, that He will not abandon His Church. We know that a man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold office in the Church as that same man is not a member of the Church.

It is a fact that the claimants to the papal office, Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI have professed heresy in their words an deeds. This is not an opinion, but a fact. Mr. Daly in the recent issue of the Four Marks very carefully demonstrated that Vatican Council II officially taught a heretical teaching on religious liberty. The teaching was made official and binding as it was published in the Acta, so if Paul VI were a lawful pope, then that would be the teaching of the Church. The article is well worth reading multiple times, as it dispels an old myth.

There are other numerous examples that can be cited such to demonstrate the heretical teaching of the conciliar claimants, and perhaps that would be useful on this forum.

You appear to have a doubt about the perpetuity of the Papal office in such a long interregnum, as does Fr. Smith. I would ask you first of all, do you have any text of a theologian or any other approved Catholic writing which states that this is not possible? In all of my reading over the years, I have never encountered any, so if you or Fr. Smith has something about this, now is the time to present it. If you do not have this, then you must realize that your view on the statement being discussed in the Vatican Council, is YOUR own interpretation and not that of the Church.

Our contention is that this is possible, and to date no one has ever presented any approved Catholic writing to contradict us. On the contrary, Mr. Daly and Mr. Lane have presented the excellent approved Catholic document by Fr. O'Reilly, whose credentials and explanation of a long term interregnum are presented here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/oreilly.html

To the next issue and the crux of your problem. Is there a mechanism given by the Church to have a pope once again? There absolutely is, and you must trust the Church that there is. Accepting a public heretic's claim to the papal office is not a solution to our problem. I will give you three scenarios below which should answer you question.

1. Extraordinary Election: St. Robert Bellarmine clearly states that in the event of the death of the Cardinals, the power of election goes to the bishops of the world and to the Roman clergy. St. Robert's teaching is published on Mr. Lanes site, which can be viewed here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm2.html

You may then object that you do not see these bishops or clergy, and that they have taken no action to date. That is irrelevant if that is your contention. There are bishops alive in the world, who do have lawful offices in the Church. That is a fact. As Mr. Daly and Mr. Lane have mentioned numerous times, the common error of the belief that Paul VI was a lawful pope, would supply jurisdiction to bishops appointed by them. We can safely believe that bishops who have not adopted heresy and appointed prior to December 7, 1965 hold their office in the Church.

I will leave it to others such as Mr. Daly, who have studied this issue more intently, to try to analyze this and come up with a precise date. But, ultimately, if the bishops of the world, or at least some of them to finally gather in council, it will be up to them in council to authoritatively decide the question of who is a lawful elector.

You may then argue that many of these bishops have retired, and then I ask you, who was authorized to accept their resignation?

2. Acclamation: If the current claimant to the papal office becomes Catholic and is accepted as pope by the Roman clergy, then by that very fact, he could become Pope, even without an election. I will leave it to others better informed than myself to state clearly what Joseph Ratzinger would have to do in this case. I would think that he would have to make a formal abjuration of heresy, and publicly renounce the heresies taught by the Second Vatican Council.

The other problem that arises with this is that there is a serious doubt as to whether Joseph Ratzinger is indeed a bishop, which of course he must be to become pope. To settle this doubt, it is my opinion at least, that he would need to be conditionally consecrated as a bishop by a bishop of the Church who certainly has jurisdiction in the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine specifically discusses the scenario of a pope both losing his office and becoming a pope by acclamation of the Roman Clergy in his De Romano Pontifice, published online at http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm I would urge you to read the last three paragraphs of this link with great attention.

3. God's direct intervention: This should never be overlooked. God can intervene directly into the affairs of men at any time. Our Lord can raise up saints with the gift of miracles who could identify a true pope if there were a dispute. Our Lord could through His direct power, or through St. Peter or any other chosen for that task, appoint a pope for His Church.

Some may argue that this would be a break from the popes of the past if this happened. But, that is not so, when the existing bishops who have jurisdiction and the Roman clergy who were lawfully appointed by the Church accept such a person as pope, then, the papal line continues through that acclamation. Therefore, the mechanism of the Church continues in this scenario, as the new pope, although appointed by Divine intervention would have been accepted through the mechanism of the Church, i.e.. acclamation.

These three scenarios are all thoroughly Catholic. They directly answer your question as to how the Church may have a new pope to end the interregnum. They are all possible, and we must trust in God that He will resolve this crisis, through the mechanism given to His Church. There will be a Pope again, we must trust in that. In the end, our final solution must not be to accept a public heretic as pope, just to find a solution to our difficulty. Our answer, rather, lies in looking to the Church for our solution, and I have given you real and possible scenarios that are Catholic answers to our problem. I have also provided you with approved Catholic sources to back up my statements.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:31 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Facing Hard Questions
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I was wondering what the response would be to the following article posted on Dr. Drolesky's website: especially, the last heading on Salvation?

It gives one pause to think that there is no Apostolic Hierarchy (identifiable, that is) anywhere. Any thoughts?

http://www.christorchaos.com/FacingHard ... Smith.html


Dear Teresa,

I haven't read the other responses yet, but Fr. Smith's conclusions don't all follow. For example, there is the role of supplied jurisdiction in appointments to offices, and clearly marriages would be valid. More later (or hopefully Mr. Daly will do the work for me!). :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Teresa is of course way out when she claims that the Church has said that she cannot be reduced to a tiny surviving minority and when she sees some big problem in the invalidity of several of the new sacraments. And she is inconsistent when she reproaches sedevacantists with excessive certainty on such issues when she is expressing with very great certainty her opinions unsupported by any proof at all.

John Daly


Thank you, John. I did not mean that the Church could not be reduced to a tiny surviving minority. What I meant was, according to what the Church has said about herself, that tiny minority must have a visible apostolic hierarchy as part of it. Yes, indeed, the Church could be reduced to a pope, several bishops, and a small number of the faithful; but, clearly, she would have her entire structure intact.

I don't think I expressed any certainty on any issue except that the Church must remain until the end of time as visible and have an apostolic hierarchy. This is not my opinion, but only what the Church herself has said. Right? And, also, that the entire traditional 'episcopate' including the SSPX do not have apostolicity (entirely) and, therefore, in, and, of themselves they cannot give what they don't have. Right?

I am intrigued by your noting the 'apparent' defection of the entire Sanhedrin. Some good food for thought. I, myself, have given thought to some scriptural passages, most importantly, St. Peter's "I know not the Man". And, also, "All of you will be scandalized in Me this night, for it is written the shepherd will be struck and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed". Finally, the Blessed Mother, St. John, and the holy women, did not abandon Our Lord when He looked the least like the God/Man. They didn't run away when the world was "scandalized" in Him.

As for the rest, I think that the sedes believe all the sacraments except baptism (and, maybe that, too) are invalid. Perhaps, I'm wrong about this. But, if the episcopal consecration is invalid, most of the sacraments would then automatically be invalid (no bishop, ergo no priest, etc.)

Historically, group after group has contended that the Church couldn't be the real Church. Argument after argument: She's too immoral, She's departed from the Fathers, She's altered the Gospel, She's too sacerdotal, and on, and on, the contention has always been She can't be the Church when the "world is scandalized in Him". And, after departing from Her, they have always splintered, fractured, and begun to decompose. Are the sedes any different? Shall we regale ourselves with their supposed communion? Let's see: Feeneyite sedes, anti-una-cum sedes, anti-Thuc sedes, anti-episcopal consecration sedes, sedes that have become popes or conclavists, home-aloners, Guerardian sedes (not anti-una-cum), Gibsonite sedes, anti-CMRI sedes et. al. None of these really want anything to do with the other. In point of fact, the most demonstrable form of communion, that is the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is denied to each other. Mr. Lane, one of the most charitable, studious, men-of-good will, as well as a passionate lover of Holy Mother Church, might find himself denied communion by a goodly number of sede clergy, at least here in America. And, you, yourself, Mr. Daly, might find that you wouldn't want to attend Mass of many sede clergy here because of your own "strong allergy to the Thuc" line, as well as your view on episcopal consecrations.

The lack of communion doesn't just rest with the above issues, it also touches the Liturgy. The pre-1955 sedes have made the argument that the Pope Pius XII changes are "dangerous and harmful to souls" because they led to the NO. (Now, how that can be from a true pontiff, I don't know). The 1958 liturgists claim that the changes are not harmful, come from a true pontiff, and this requires obedience. The 1962 liturgists claim the same for the John XXIII changes.

Communion doesn't mean geniality, and can we all get along together. For the Church, it means "sharing the same sacraments" (at least as part of the definition, I believe). The issues that divide sedes are appear to be matter for the ordinary, universal magisterium. BOB/BOD has already been defined. Mr. Lane and you have cogently and clearly shown that the anti-una-cum position as regards attendance at Mass is wrong. The SSPV position regarding denying communion to Thuc attendees is clearly against the mind of the Church. These issues involve the Faith. Clearly, as the years pass, the sede position that prided itself on maintaining the Faith is beginning to show cracks. These issues today, perhaps, not the most major, but really having serious import, will be eclipsed by more serious breaches of Faith. You and I know that this is an inevitability given no reigning authority.

As decade follows decade, the splintering will continue and chaos will continue grow. Will the sedes come to grips with the idea that a perpetual vacancy of the entire Church hierarchy is an impossibility, and try to resolve the crisis some other way, or will they just continue to change the date? I know the Lord will never abandon His Church. However, I, also, know what the Church says about herself, and, She says that She will perdure until the end of time, unaltered in Her constitution, indefectible, infallible, and visible through an apostolic hierarchy.

By the by, have there not been Councils before in the Church that have been 'trashed' so to speak?

Some of these issues, as poorly as I have presented them, should really be looked at seriously by sedes. Perhaps, "the bishop in a gaol in China" cannot be dismissed so handily, but do remember this ... time is running out for that bishop.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:48 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Excellent post, Mike. Thank you for such a huge effort.

A couple of small suggestions.

1. Acclamation is a form of election. Therefore a pope who becomes pope is actually elected.
2. If I recall accurately, Mr. Daly did not show that religious liberty is heretical, but rather that if the V2 church was the true Church, then it would follow that we must accept this solemnly condemned error as true.
3. "We can safely believe that bishops who have not adopted heresy and appointed prior to December 7, 1965 hold their office in the Church." I would say that the date may be much later - even up to a decade later. The question of supplied jurisdiction in common error is very difficult, because the common error must be amongst Catholics, and we cannot be entirely sure who was a Catholic and who wasn't, for many years after V2. I think we can safely say that most Novus Ordo attendees are not Catholics today, but when did that become the case? And is it relevant anyway? That is, if the true Catholics are in error about the identity of the pope (which most of them are even today), then would it matter what anybody else thinks? The "stopper" would then be that the appointees are not valid matter for appointment, because they are not Catholics. I would be interested in Mr. Daly's comments on these points.
4. You are quite right to ask, "who was authorised to accept resignations?" Without an acceptance by a superior, resignations are not valid. The exception is the papacy.
5. If Ratzinger became a Catholic I don't think he would need a bishop with jurisdiction to consecrate him - he would merely need what he would lack, which is episcopal orders. Jurisdiction would come to him with the office, which he would have from God, having been selected by the Church as its visible head.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Teresa,


Do you think the " church" teaching open heresy is in fact the Catholic Church?

In Xto,


Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:58 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Dear John,

Thank you for the clarification on those points. On the Four Marks article, I should have written that the heresy of religious liberty would be binding on the Church if Paul VI had been pope. I am reading several things on the subject right now, so I had accidentally lumped that in with another in my mind. Thank you for clearing up some up some of the other points as well.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:25 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Hello Teresa,

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Some of these issues, as poorly as I have presented them, should really be looked at seriously by sedes.


I may travel in different circles than you Teresa, but it seems to me that "sedes" have "seriously" considered these difficulties numerous times and in diverse fashions. I hold to the old theological saying that "One thousand and one difficulties don't equal one doubt.". The questions posed by Fr. Smith keep me up at night, sometimes. Then I calm down, read a bit of Chesterton, and remember that I am but an ignorant fool clammering about looking for a candle so that I might see in the dark. I don't need to save the church...I don't need to figure it all out....I am not looking for a "Bill contra mundi" type situation. The church will save me, the church will figure it out, and the church will persevere.

Teresa, I wonder if your trying to sniff out a doubt?

In Christ,
Bill


Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:01 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John Daly wrote:

Quote:
The trad bishops are validly consecrated and can administer valid confirmation and ordination, but they have no authority.

The apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.

…men who have valid epicsopal orders but no power to govern the Church.



Does this mean that then that;

1. We should look to the validly ordained cardinals (if any are left) to get together and elect one of their own to the True Pope?

2. Look to the validly ordained bishops (if any are left) to get together and elect one of their own to be the True Pope?

3. Look for an acclamation?

4. Wait for the miraculous coming of Sts Peter and Paul to come and show us the next Pope, as some believe?


We know from our stand that the "Rock" has not always been present and that Rocks have been elected through the centuries. Besides, though controverted, St. Bellarmine's statement,

Quote:
... if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops. etc. etc


seems to suggest that existing valid bishops and the Roman clergy have the "authority" to elect, with some dependence etc etc. This of course is if all the valid bishops and cardinals have perished. Unless of course we expect all the invalid bishops and cardinals to perish "simultaneously" .

I understand fully that we want to exhaust all the possibilities before we jump to electing a new Pope but we certainly cannot cut down all posiibilities.

I thnk it is in the hands of the current valid and Trad Bishops and clergy and laity, to all come together, as remote as that occurrence seems.
Could epikeia not also come into play here?


Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:59 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post Hard questions....
I've read the responses that have followed my post and others earlier today... and am thankful for what has been expressed in them... I do, however, feel like one standing outside the parlour window, looking in and straining to listen, after having knocked at an unanswered door. A simple hello or welcome would be nice... if only once in awhile. I struggle as you do...

In Christ Jesus,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:32 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Hard questions....
BarJonas wrote:
I've read the responses that have followed my post and others earlier today... and am thankful for what has been expressed in them... I do, however, feel like one standing outside the parlour window, looking in and straining to listen, after having knocked at an unanswered door. A simple hello or welcome would be nice... if only once in awhile. I struggle as you do...

In Christ Jesus,

BarJonas


Hello. :)

Absolutely we all struggle. Actually, I think if I was asked what is my motivation for any of this, I would say that it is to assist others to see clearly what is clear, and console them concerning what is not clear, so that we all may arrive safely with our Faith intact at the dawn which will follow this dark night. So welcome, BarJonas. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Hi BarJonas,

Excuse our discourtesy. Often we forget to be kind and compassionate when we ought not. Welcome aboard and please do let us know your ideas about the Fr. Smith article.

The following is meant in all charity. I ascribe only good will and the best intentions to everyone on this forum. If the manner of speech used appears at times to be harsh, it is not meant to be accusative in any way to the forum's participants; only as a point of absolute importance that needs to be addressed.

Also, having been a sede for several decades, I am well aquainted with sede-land. The following is written as much for me as it is for other forum members in spite of its 'me vs. sede' appearance. With insufferable pride and colossal ignorance, I failed to pass Basic Catechism 101. What is apostolicity? What is jurisdiction? And, what it means for the Church. Perhaps, others would do well to think of this.

John Lane wrote:
5. If Ratzinger became a Catholic I don't think he would need a bishop with jurisdiction to consecrate him - he would merely need what he would lack, which is episcopal orders. Jurisdiction would come to him with the office, which he would have from God, having been selected by the Church as its visible head.


Hi John,

Some interesting points you have suggested. The last is by far the most interesting. I disagree with you on this idea that jurisdiction comes to the pope from the office. If I understand apostolicity correctly, it consists of the legitimate authoritative transmission from one who has it to one who doesn't. I believe it does not come from the office, entirely. It is associated with an office, but is given from one man who has jurisdiction to one who doesn't. The fullness of the episcopate consists in the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction.

The following link to the definition of apostolicity from the Catholic Encyclopedia is of interest, also.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Pay particular attention to the second sentence of the first paragraph, and, also the entire second paragraph: to wit, It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess.

This whole idea of apostolicity in its fullness is of absolute, paramount importance for sedes to address. Because apostolicity "virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity". Again, as the first paragraph indicates, "It is of great importance because it is the [b]surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity." [/b]

If I seem to sound like a broken record, it is because this is so critically important. Let me state this one more time, and let's all be certain of this, no traditional bishop today has apostolicity, and as things stand, they will never get it (barring the Bishop-in-a-gaol, in China). They have absolutely no jurisdiction. Indeed, if they had followed the Church, they would never have allowed themselves to be consecrated. This is absolutely outside the realm of being 'traditional'.

If sedes are traditional, then let them live with the results of that decision; which means being bereft of the sacraments, in most cases. No, instead the sedes want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want their little chapel with Fr. so-and-so, or Bishop so-and-so, and act as if they are the Church and everything is okee-dokee. It doesn't work that way. If you are a sede, you've made some critical decisions about Holy Mother Church. You, also, claim you are traditional to Holy Mother Church. Then, follow that decision in all of its painful ramifications, which means no sacramental life. Don't invent a new Church to satisfy your longing for the sacraments. Either move to a location where one of the few remaining priests live that understand this necessity, or bear the Cross more fully with Holy Mother Church and live without the sacraments, perhaps, indefinitely.

You don't get to invent a Church without apostolicity, and claim this new invention is of necessity. Whose necessity, yours; or the Church's? You don't get to setup shop so-to-speak, i.e., seminaries, ordinations, consecrations, all the sacraments; and, then, claim the title of Traditional. You don't get to run your 'little' church with all the gifts of Holy Mother Church without the mark of apostolicity. Photius and Celarius would be proud.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Hello Teresa,

You've thrown a lot babies out with a lot of bath water here. So much that I can't keep track of it all.


Are you saying apostolicity and juridiction are identical concepts? As I understand it, traditional priests would argue that jurisdiction is suppplied, and even required to give the faithful the Sacraments.

You might have a go at this:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=20&catname=11


Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Teresa,

I do hope you can find the time to answer my question in yesterdays post. In addition, based your recent post, I will have another, you stated:

Quote:
If I understand apostolicity correctly, it consists of the legitimate authoritative transmission from one who has it to one who doesn't.


Regarding the Papacy, if the we plug in your statement, how does a dead pontiff, pass on his authority to the next valid pope? Also, there have been vacancies in the past of many months up to 2 years before election, today, it appears at least 40 years and counting.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Dear Teresa,

I was always under the impression that one does not have to be a bishop to be elected pope but, he is the pope never-the-less with the universal jurisdiction that comes with the office. If I am not mistaken there are a few historical precedents of men who were elected pope and were not yet bishops. If my memory serves me, I believe there is a case when even a layman was at one time elected.

What proof do you have to show that jurisdiction goes hand in hand with apostolicity? I assume that by apostolicity you mean episcopal orders, am I correct?

JMJ,

Lance

BTW: Does your aunt agree with this? :D


Last edited by Recusant on Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Geoff,

Many thanks for posting this very direct and relevant counter to the " hard" questions brought up by good member Teresa.

Here is the summary portion of Fr. Cekada's article;

To sum up the foregoing:

• Divine law obliges traditional Catholic priests and bishops to administer sacraments to the faithful. (See I)

• This same divine law also provides legitimate deputation and apostolic mission for their apostolate. (See II)

• Human ecclesiastical (canon) laws whose application impedes fulfilling this divine law have ceased because they are now harmful (nocivae). (See III & IV)

• This includes canon 879, requiring an express grant of jurisdiction for validity of absolution. (See III.B & IV.B)

• Instead, divine law directly delegates jurisdiction in the internal forum to traditional Catholic priests for the absolution they impart. (See V)

None of this, I hasten to add, justifies ignoring the many other provisions of ecclesiastical law regulating the conferral and reception of the sacraments, especially those forbidding the conferral of Holy Orders on the ignorant and the unfit.

Christ Himself commands His priests to dispense His sacraments to His flock. Since the pastors invested with jurisdiction for the cura animarum have all defected to the modernist religion, their obligation now devolves to us, the few faithful priests who remain.

We confer Christ’s sacraments because He has made it our duty.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Teresa,

Just quickly, for I don't have much time, I am not in any way suggesting what you take from my words, and I apologise for the lack of clarity. The concepts as I understand them are:

1. The Church designates a man to be her visible head.
2. The power of jurisdiction is an intrinsic part of the office. In a very real sense, it is the office. (An office is nothing more nor less than a stable position to which jurisdiction is attached - that's from the Code - quoting from memory).
3. The power of orders is distinct from both apostolicity and jurisdiction.

So, you are entirely right in pointing out that a new pope must participate in the apostolic succession, which means something must be handed on to him by his predecessor. What is handed on to him? Episcopal orders and the approval, for want of a better term, of the Roman Church. In this matter other bishops differ from popes, in that popes receive their jurisdiction, along with their office, directly from God after being designated ("elected") by the Sacred College, whereas lesser bishops receive their jurisdiction from the pope (this used to be controverted but Pius XII seems to have settled the question).

In other words, the fact of the apostolic succession rests ultimately upon the approval of the local Church of Rome, which is indefectible.

But I could well be wrong about any of this, and I'm sure this is dealt with in the manuals so we can check, but I'm hoping that somebody with more time can look it up!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Gentlemen, let the games begin!

Quote:
Lance Tardugno wrote:
Dear Teresa,

I was always under the impression that one does not have to be a bishop to be elected pope but, he is the pope never-the-less with the universal jurisdiction that comes with the office. If I am not mistaken there are a few historical precedents of men who were elected pope and were not yet bishops. If my memory serves me, I believe there is a case when even a layman was at one time elected.

What proof do you have to show that jurisdiction goes hand in hand with apostolicity? I assume that by apostolicity you mean episcopal orders, am I correct?

JMJ,

Lance

BTW: Does your aunt agree with this?



Hi ya Lance,

To your last question, probably not. But we both love Fr. Peter Scott, so that may tell you we're OK.

Next: proof that jurisdiction goes hand-in-hand with apostolicity. Not being funny, but try Spirago Clarke. Yes, by apostolicity I mean episcopal orders in-toto. And, yes, I'm well aware that some men have been elected pope that have not been bishops, but they were then consecrated bishops by existing apostolic bishops.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia snippet necessary to understand this:

"In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they teach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church."

So, you see Lance, Vince and others; the trad bishops do not have apostolic succession. I certainly agree that they have valid episcopal orders. But, being part of the episcopate of the Roman Catholic Church, you all know as well as I, requires more than validity; it requires authority.

Here is John Daly, who has more wisdom and knowledge than I could aquire in 10 lifetimes:

Quote:
John Daly:

Er, excuse me, csibf, but what's this about the trad bishops being the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I'd like to query that very strongly and I believe most of the trad bishops would support me in doing so.

The trad bishops are validly consecrated and can administer valid confirmation and ordination, but they have no authority.

The apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See. The trad bishops haven't got it.

Teresa is of course way out when she claims that the Church has said that she cannot be reduced to a tiny surviving minority and when she sees some big problem in the invalidity of several of the new sacraments. And she is inconsistent when she reproaches sedevacantists with excessive certainty on such issues when she is expressing with very great certainty her opinions unsupported by any proof at all. But on the "where is the hierarchy" problem, she is right that there is a real difficulty.

I don't think the difficulty is insuperable, but there can be no solution to it in men who have valid epicsopal orders but no power to govern the Church.



So, Fr. Cekada not withstanding, the problem remains.

Vince, no, I don't think the "church" teaching open heresy is in fact the Catholic Church.

The next valid pope is already a valid successor to the apostles: that is, he partakes of apostolicity. To wit, he was a bishop before becoming pope.

Quote:
John Lane:

3. "We can safely believe that bishops who have not adopted heresy and appointed prior to December 7, 1965 hold their office in the Church." I would say that the date may be much later - even up to a decade later. The question of supplied jurisdiction in common error is very difficult, because the common error must be amongst Catholics, and we cannot be entirely sure who was a Catholic and who wasn't, for many years after V2. I think we can safely say that most Novus Ordo attendees are not Catholics today, but when did that become the case? And is it relevant anyway? That is, if the true Catholics are in error about the identity of the pope (which most of them are even today), then would it matter what anybody else thinks? The "stopper" would then be that the appointees are not valid matter for appointment, because they are not Catholics. I would be interested in Mr. Daly's comments on these points.


Supplied jurisdiction does not give apostolicity. Common error does not give apostolicity. Either Paul VI was pope December 8, 1965 or not. If not, any bishops made by him would not enjoy apostolic succession. By the by, the new episcopal rite of consecration went into effect in 1968, so that sort of stymies the decade later theory ... a non-pope creates a non-bishop would be a stretch for apostolic succession.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

Many thanks for respounding. You stated ;

Quote:
no, I don't think the "church" teaching open heresy is in fact the Catholic Church.


So, where in your veiw is " the Church" ?
In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:53 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post Hard questions...
Thank you John and Teresa for your kind replies. I think the question I ask here is relevant to this particular post... and it is in no way rhetorical or meant to stir a frey: Being a convert of 20 years from both liberal and fundamentalist protest-antism, as a Catholic, I have wondered in the context of this great apostasy about two scriptures that come to mind repeatedly... one is Our Lord's question: "when the Son of Man returns, will he find the Faith upon the earth?" and the other, St. Paul to the Thesssalonians: "but first that which hindereth must be removed...and then the man of sin will be revealed". I cite from memory, so please forgive any error in exactness. What does the Church teach regarding these 2 scriptures, and what is your understanding therefore of their meaning in our present context... more particularly, the latter (what is the "that which hindereth")? Does this refer to the Papacy?

Pax Christi!

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Teresa,

I have one minute. Literally.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
"In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they teach unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church."


This is all true but the ultimate touchstone of apostolicity is the approval of the Roman Church. That is, the local church of Rome, in which formally resides the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. That is, all other sees can suffer breaks; all other churches can fail; Rome will never fail and whomever she identifies as pope is truly pope. Read Bellarmine on Pope St. Felix II and see how this worked clearly in his case - everybody thought Liberius was still pope - except the Roman clergy, who selected Felix. When I get time I'll scan in Van Noort on the Apostolic Succession, but suffice to say when the Roman Church emerges from the obscurity of being hidden behind the Modernist sect run by PapaRatzi, she will elect a pope by one means or other and we will see the resurrection of the Church.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
The next valid pope is already a valid successor to the apostles: that is, he partakes of apostolicity. To wit, he was a bishop before becoming pope.


Sorry, insofar as that implies that he receives jurisdiction from a common bishop, not directly from God, it is actually heretical, I believe. !

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Supplied jurisdiction does not give apostolicity. Common error does not give apostolicity. Either Paul VI was pope December 8, 1965 or not. If not, any bishops made by him would not enjoy apostolic succession. By the by, the new episcopal rite of consecration went into effect in 1968, so that sort of stymies the decade later theory ... a non-pope creates a non-bishop would be a stretch for apostolic succession.


The apostolic succession consists in the fact that the bishop is really legitimately a bishop of the Catholic Church possessing ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore whether his appointment is valid due to supplied or ordinary jurisdicition, he is a member of the apostolic college and participates in that succession. The apostolic succession is not a power in itself - it is just a fact.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Hard questions...
BarJonas wrote:
Thank you John and Teresa for your kind replies. I think the question I ask here is relevant to this particular post... and it is in no way rhetorical or meant to stir a frey: Being a convert of 20 years from both liberal and fundamentalist protest-antism, as a Catholic, I have wondered in the context of this great apostasy about two scriptures that come to mind repeatedly... one is Our Lord's question: "when the Son of Man returns, will he find the Faith upon the earth?" and the other, St. Paul to the Thesssalonians: "but first that which hindereth must be removed...and then the man of sin will be revealed". I cite from memory, so please forgive any error in exactness. What does the Church teach regarding these 2 scriptures, and what is your understanding therefore of their meaning in our present context... more particularly, the latter (what is the "that which hindereth")? Does this refer to the Papacy?

Pax Christi!

BarJonas


BarJonas,

I think to the first Scriptural quote, the Fathers of the Church have responded "NO". I think this is a substantiation that the Church will be a 'remnant'. She, Holy Mother Church, will still be here with all Her Marks, and all Her Attributes; but she will be reduced to a very small number.

The second quote: I have the Original Douay Rheims which has some many pages of explanations of this second epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2. It is quite lengthy, so it would be best perhaps to private message you with it, if you would like. I'm sure others have more immediate sources which should help.

I'm sure thinking you mean 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2, right BarJonas?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:28 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John,

Quote:
John Daly,

The trad bishops are validly consecrated and can administer valid confirmation and ordination, but they have no authority.

The apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See. The trad bishops haven't got it.

...But on the "where is the hierarchy" problem, she is right that there is a real difficulty.

I don't think the difficulty is insuperable, but there can be no solution to it in men who have valid epicsopal orders but no power to govern the Church.


You and JSD can hash this out.


Quote:
John Lane,

When I get time I'll scan in Van Noort on the Apostolic Succession, but suffice to say when the Roman Church emerges from the obscurity of being hidden behind the Modernist sect run by PapaRatzi, she will elect a pope by one means or other and we will see the resurrection of the Church.


Thought the following from the Douay Rheims Annotations was apropos to the above:

"St. Jerome refuteth the same wicked Heresy in the *Luciferians, proving against them that they make God subject to the Devil, and a poor miserable Christ, that imagine the Church his body may either perish or be driven to any corner of the world. ... It is enough for the Christian reader to know that it is an old deceit and excuse of all Heretics and Schismatics, for defense of their forsaking God's Church, that the Church is perished, or remaineth hidden, or in themselves only and in those places where they and their followers dwell: to know also, that this is reproved by the holy Doctors of the primitive Church, and that it is against Christ's honor, power, providence, and promise." Page 448, Section: There can be no apostasy of the visible Church from God.

So, I'll depart from this topic with the question from Fr. Lawrence C. Smith that started it all: Where is the visible, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, right here and now?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:23 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
John,

Quote:
John Daly,

The trad bishops are validly consecrated and can administer valid confirmation and ordination, but they have no authority.

The apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.


You and JSD can hash this out.


We agree. There is nothing to thrash out. :)


Teresa Ginardi wrote:
"St. Jerome refuteth the same wicked Heresy in the *Luciferians, proving against them that they make God subject to the Devil, and a poor miserable Christ, that imagine the Church his body may either perish or be driven to any corner of the world. ... It is enough for the Christian reader to know that it is an old deceit and excuse of all Heretics and Schismatics, for defense of their forsaking God's Church, that the Church is perished, or remaineth hidden, or in themselves only and in those places where they and their followers dwell: to know also, that this is reproved by the holy Doctors of the primitive Church, and that it is against Christ's honor, power, providence, and promise." Page 448, Section: There can be no apostasy of the visible Church from God.

So, I'll depart from this topic with the question from Fr. Lawrence C. Smith that started it all: Where is the visible, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, right here and now?


It's the traditional Catholics. That's the Church.

If the St. Jerome quote is to be taken in the sense you seem to be suggesting, then it is merely a way of arguing that the Church has disappeared or that the Novus Ordo is good and holy. The latter is manifestly false; the former is contrary to Faith.

Watch and pray.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

I ask you - Where is the visible, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, right here and now?

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:09 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
I ask you - Where is the visible, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, right here and now?


Dear Vince,

I don't think Teresa is intending to demolish the sedevacantist thesis - rather she is honestly presenting difficulties as she sees them. I think this is laudable and necessary, and it would be better if there were more of this. We will convince a lot more of our opponents if we are seen to have cogent responses to the real difficulties our solution entails.

Dear Teresa,

I have been pondering this and it seems to me that what we need to keep in view is that the sedeplenist solution doesn't really avoid the difficulty. In other words, the difficulty is one which is inherent in the traditional Catholic position, not in the sedevacantist position. That is what my comment above is meant to convey - viz. "If the St. Jerome quote is to be taken in the sense you seem to be suggesting, then it is merely a way of arguing that the Church has disappeared or that the Novus Ordo is good and holy. The latter is manifestly false; the former is contrary to Faith."

Make sense?

The other thing which strikes me is how the arrogant attitude adopted by many sedevacantists (including me in the past) towards the sedeplenist traditional Catholics is not merely morally reprehensible but also foolish. Once the indefectibility of the local church of Rome is really understood, it poses a major difficulty for our position, and even though I think this difficulty really remains under the sedeplenist hypothesis, it is certainly clear why a sedeplenist will think that it poses an insuperable difficulty for us, and not for them. From their perspective the pope exists, the Roman clergy are adhering to him, and his behaviour is a mystery; from our perspective, the Roman clergy appear to a man to have adopted a whole new religion, and if this does not mean that they are all non-Catholics, then the problem doesn't disappear, because they have also apparently unanimously adhered to a false claimant to the papacy, thus implying - according to the pre-V2 books - that he is the true and undoubted claimant.

This is not a reason to be any more sympathetic to the sedeplenist position, but it is certainly a reason to think better of the sedeplenists.

JS Daly is on holiday for this week, so that is why we haven't heard from him.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear John,

Quote:
Dear Vince,

I don't think Teresa is intending to demolish the sedevacantist thesis - rather she is honestly presenting difficulties as she sees them. I think this is laudable and necessary, and it would be better if there were more of this. We will convince a lot more of our opponents if we are seen to have cogent responses to the real difficulties our solution entails.


Indeed, and in light of her concern with apostolic succession, and the highlight that no traditional Bishop has this quality, it is good for her, or anyone to answer this question:

Where currently is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? And as you noted, all traditional Catholics are in the same " ark" regarding this question. :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Dear Vince,

I don't think Teresa is intending to demolish the sedevacantist thesis - rather she is honestly presenting difficulties as she sees them. I think this is laudable and necessary, and it would be better if there were more of this. We will convince a lot more of our opponents if we are seen to have cogent responses to the real difficulties our solution entails.

Dear Teresa,

I have been pondering this and it seems to me that what we need to keep in view is that the sedeplenist solution doesn't really avoid the difficulty. In other words, the difficulty is one which is inherent in the traditional Catholic position, not in the sedevacantist position. That is what my comment above is meant to convey - viz. "If the St. Jerome quote is to be taken in the sense you seem to be suggesting, then it is merely a way of arguing that the Church has disappeared or that the Novus Ordo is good and holy. The latter is manifestly false; the former is contrary to Faith."

Make sense?

The other thing which strikes me is how the arrogant attitude adopted by many sedevacantists (including me in the past) towards the sedeplenist traditional Catholics is not merely morally reprehensible but also foolish. Once the indefectibility of the local church of Rome is really understood, it poses a major difficulty for our position, and even though I think this difficulty really remains under the sedeplenist hypothesis, it is certainly clear why a sedeplenist will think that it poses an insuperable difficulty for us, and not for them. From their perspective the pope exists, the Roman clergy are adhering to him, and his behaviour is a mystery; from our perspective, the Roman clergy appear to a man to have adopted a whole new religion, and if this does not mean that they are all non-Catholics, then the problem doesn't disappear, because they have also apparently unanimously adhered to a false claimant to the papacy, thus implying - according to the pre-V2 books - that he is the true and undoubted claimant.

This is not a reason to be any more sympathetic to the sedeplenist position, but it is certainly a reason to think better of the sedeplenists.

JS Daly is on holiday for this week, so that is why we haven't heard from him.


Thank you John for the kind reply. Yes, indeed, I was trying to elicit a cogent response to this very vexing question. Fr. Cekada's article Absolutely Null and Void has staggering implications for the visibility of Holy Mother Church. A temporary vacancy of the Holy See is one thing. The complete loss of the hierarchy, coupled with the traditional bishops' lack of authority to assist in restoring an hierarchy, is to me totally incomprehensible.

Having been an sv for years, the usual approach by sv's to a question that is difficult to answer is to shift the argument to the conciliar church's apostasy. Along with the shift in argument is a general lack of charity displayed by an hostile, belligerent, almost vicious attitude (been there, done that), as you aptly pointed out above. If I have taken a theological position, I want to be able to defend that position on its own merits from the mind of the Church. I don't want to succumb to the "people that live in glass houses" position. However, that's what the sv position now appears to me. I still remain very sympathetic to the sv position; but, no pope - no hierarchy, no traditional bishop to restore hierarchy = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.

The absolute grandeur of Holy Mother Church is astounding. If you could put your arms around her, you'd hug her. One of the principle characteristics of this grandeur is her continued existence for all these years. Historically, Holy Mother Church has been assailed from within and without. I think we tend to forget, if we ever knew, that she's been in serious difficulties before, (maybe not as bad as this, but maybe so), and she has triumphed. In many of these crises, she appeared to all intents and purposes to have failed.

In the Arian crisis, most of her churches were occupied by heretics and the pope appeared to weaken near the end and sign a semi-Arian creed. This crisis lasted for years (decades in fact) with St. Athanasius as its victor. However, throughout, Councils were called, bishops were threatened and signed statements they may not have agreed with, etc. All in all, it was a mess and threatened the very life of the Church as its main thrust was to deny the divinity of Christ.

When St. Peter Damian wrote his Gomorrah, the Church was suffering from a severe moral crisis in its priesthood. When morality is overturn, belief in the doctrines of the Church soon follow. This crisis was also overcome.

In the years 1340-1355, Europe, and most especially the Church, suffered the immense plague, the Black Death. Perhaps, one-third to one-half of Europe died during this time. Many monasteries, abbeys, and convents were left completely empty. The effect on the Church lasted through the Reformation. The lack of well-educated priests to teach in seminaries, as well as the lack of vocations, created a clerical group that was extremely ill-educated. It, also, must be remembered that Our Lord does not visit plagues on countries and peoples because everyone was living a holy life.

The Reformation saw a Church rampant with immorality, luxury, and gross worldliness. As those in power in the Church would not initiate a reform, it was forced on them from one of their own, Luther. The attack by Luther and Calvin was devastating and forced the Council of Trent that spanned 18 years. In her human element, the Church could not have looked worse to the world. But, again, she conquered.

On and on, you get the point. She will triumph from this crisis. Of that, we are sure. But, how the sv's can strip her of every means to accomplish that, and still expect her to triumph; still eludes my grasp.


Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

I ask you - Where is the visible, apostolic, Roman Catholic Church, right here and now?

In Xto,
Vincent


Where she's always been and always will be. Right now the bad guys seem to have the upper hand, but are they in for a surprise. By the way, Vince, I asked you first (just kidding). :D

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:45 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Teresa,

Just think about the situation a bit more, and I am sure you will see that this is a difficulty for all traditional Catholics, not just for us. This is not a "glass houses" argument. It is an observation of fact. I really believe that I am open to changing my position if better arguments are presented, but it is clear to me that accepting Ratzinger's claim will do nothing to reduce our difficulties and will increase them in several respects. Indeed, accepting his claim means either abandoning the traditional Catholic Faith in favour of the Novus Ordo, or rejecting the common doctrine of the theology manuals in favour of various novelties invented (mostly) by SSPX thinkers who have attempted to rationalise the sedeplenist position over the years (e.g. the idea of heresy in the ordinary magisterium, the fallibility of the Church in general disciplinary provisions, in canonisations, in the liturgy, etc.). Neither option is possible.

And in any case, we have not stripped Holy Church of her ability to recover from this crisis. You do not appear to have read what I have said about this. All that we need is for clerics of the Roman diocese (i.e. the local church of Rome) to abjure their errors and return to the Church, and elect a pope. He will immediately possess universal jurisdiction, and when consecrated bishop he will be a true successor of the Apostles - because he will be the true successor of St. Peter. If you can say why this is not a true potential solution then please do so. But at present you appear to me to be begging the question.

If this scenario were to pan out, and especially if it were accompanied by a miracle or two to assist the common people to see clearly where the truth lay, I don't see that anybody could assail it on canonical, historical, or theological grounds. It would certainly provide for all that is required, as far as I can tell. The role of the theologians would then be to explain how the Church of Rome persisted as a visible unity of faith and charity during her (partial, almost total) eclipse by the V2 sect. This would be a task not unlike that which arose from the Council of Constance and the end of the Great Western Schism.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

Many thanks again for your time. You stated:
Quote:
Where she's always been and always will be. Right now the bad guys seem to have the upper hand, but are they in for a surprise


In your answer, are you holding the position that the current See 's even Rome, while occupied by the " bad" guys still have office and jurisdiction in Holy Mother Church?

Thanks in advance !

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
John Lane wrote:
All that we need is for clerics of the Roman diocese (i.e. the local church of Rome) to abjure their errors and return to the Church, and elect a pope.


Dear John,

I'm a little confused by this, how would the Roman clergy regain their jurisdiction to elect a pope if they lost it by their error? Would it not be more feasible that there are still Roman clergy left that have not abandoned the faith and those would be able to elect a pope? Do you think that it is possible that there are several Eastern Rite Catholic bishops that do hold the Faith and would be legitimate holders of their office even though they may have been appointed by a false claimant? Wouldn't canon 209 be of value in this case?

JMJ,

Lance


Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Lance,

Lance Tardugno wrote:
I'm a little confused by this, how would the Roman clergy regain their jurisdiction to elect a pope if they lost it by their error?

They don't need jurisdiction to elect a pope. Belarmine says that in the absence of the cardinals the right and power to elect devolves upon the lesser Roman clergy. Lesser clergy don't possess ordinary jurisdiction. They possess a status as members of the body of clergy of that diocese, and that is all. That is their qualification.


Lance Tardugno wrote:
Would it not be more feasible that there are still Roman clergy left that have not abandoned the faith and those would be able to elect a pope?

Possibly, but not necessarily. It isn't a question of what is more or less feasible - it is a question of what is absolutely possible. The theologians will afterwards point out that whatever happened was possible and preserved all essentials.


Lance Tardugno wrote:
Do you think that it is possible that there are several Eastern Rite Catholic bishops that do hold the Faith and would be legitimate holders of their office even though they may have been appointed by a false claimant?

I don't think it likely, but it is certainly possible.


Lance Tardugno wrote:
Wouldn't canon 209 be of value in this case?

Possibly, but I think my scenario is more classical and more able to secure the acceptance of the remaining faithful. But who knows what God will arrange? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Wonderful article on this subject:

http://www.sedevacantism.net/oreilly.html


Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John Lane wrote:

Quote:
It's the traditional Catholics. That's the Church.


I fully agree with you there. Would it not follow then that it has all the power and authority given by Christ, albeit uncertain where or in whom that power and authority lies? Or are we afraid to assign or assume that power and authority? Granted that we should be wary and not "grush in where angels fear to tread"?


Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Dear Teresa,

And in any case, we have not stripped Holy Church of her ability to recover from this crisis. You do not appear to have read what I have said about this. All that we need is for clerics of the Roman diocese (i.e. the local church of Rome) to abjure their errors and return to the Church, and elect a pope. He will immediately possess universal jurisdiction, and when consecrated bishop he will be a true successor of the Apostles - because he will be the true successor of St. Peter. If you can say why this is not a true potential solution then please do so. But at present you appear to me to be begging the question.

If this scenario were to pan out, and especially if it were accompanied by a miracle or two to assist the common people to see clearly where the truth lay, I don't see that anybody could assail it on canonical, historical, or theological grounds. It would certainly provide for all that is required, as far as I can tell. The role of the theologians would then be to explain how the Church of Rome persisted as a visible unity of faith and charity during her (partial, almost total) eclipse by the V2 sect. This would be a task not unlike that which arose from the Council of Constance and the end of the Great Western Schism.


John,

I'm, at present, not going to say this scenario you offered above is incorrect, impossible, etc. I'd like to see it offered from more than one source. Why did Bishop Guerard develop his amazing and novel material/formal thesis, if something like what you state is possible? Why aren't the sede Bishops offering this as a true potential solution? Why do we have most of the sede Bishops moving to the sedeprivationist position? The scenario you've outlined seems on the face of it quite 'interesting', and I'll pursue it more.

Not to beg the question too much, what does JSD think of this resolution to the crisis? I know he's on holiday, but have you discussed this with him?

Wouldn't the Roman clergy have to be real priests? If the new consecration rite is invalid, then the Roman clergy would be a fast shrinking group, right?

This whole sede position is really critically linked with time. By the time your 50, John, (and I assume that's not an overly long period of time), and this crisis is still upon us, the sede position will be proved wrong ... sort of like the Jehovah Witnesses and the 1914 end of the world scenario.

However, except for the lack of valid Roman clergy, the scenario you've painted above is indeed worth looking at.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John, you wrote:

Quote:
All that we need is for clerics of the Roman diocese (i.e. the local church of Rome) to abjure their errors and return to the Church, and elect a pope.


Are you saying that they may be all, bishops and priests, validly ordained? If not, who's is going to re-accept them back to the Church, to 'reordain' them?.

I still think that the solution lies with the Trads and the Trad Bishops stepping up to the plate, with them re-acepting, re-ordaining and re-elcting the current 'lowerarchy'.

God Bless.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:27 pm
Profile
New post 
The Fr. O'Reilly article is really good, and his ideas were prophetic. Bishop Kelly holds the personal opinion that we are in what are called the "end times", that what we see in this crisis is the Restrainer no longer being restarained, the Great Revolt. So if this were true, that we are in these special times of the advent of the Antichrist, wouldn't some serious attack on the Vicar of Christ-the whole idea of what the papacy even means- be attacked?
I'm reading Fr. Herman Bernard Kramer's "The Book of Destiny" in order to be better informed.

Would it be putting the cart before the horse by asking if anyone thinks there is a relationship between the current crisis and the advent of the Man of Sin? When JP2 would say we were in the New Advent, that's the way I interpreted his words. Holy Guardian Angels, pray for us.
with love, Eliz.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:28 pm

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
Eliz wrote:
Quote:
I'm reading Fr. Herman Bernard Kramer's "The Book of Destiny" in order to be better informed.

That is an excellent book. It needs to be read many times. I have been reading it over and over for 2 years. Seems to me the author deals with events on a material and spiritual plain. ie. The "Whore of Babylon" can be the Vatican 2 counter-church, and it can also symbolize the world's largest cities and their corruption.

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:48 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Teresa,

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I'd like to see it offered from more than one source.

Yes, of course. I don't expect anybody to take my word for it. I was only saying that you shouldn't assume that no solution is possible when there are people about who say that they think there are solutions. These need to be examined.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Why did Bishop Guerard develop his amazing and novel material/formal thesis, if something like what you state is possible?

Well, Bishop Guerard was a very odd thinker in any case. There is a review in the American Ecclesiastical Review of a book written by him, and it was not, if I recall correctly, very flattering. (It was circa 1950 I think if somebody with access wishes to look it up).

He claimed, by the way, that nobody can know a heretic except after judgement by a superior - which idea we know is contrary to the best authorities and I can't understand where he got it. I have often wondered how much his thinking on this point was responsible for the fact that graduates of Econe, where he was professor of theology, generally hold this same view. It's disastrous.

But the reason he gave for developing his singular theory on the vacancy of the Holy See was simply that unless there was some transmission of "legitimacy" via the New Church men, the restored hierarchy would not really be successors of the pre-V2 hierarchy - they would constitute a new hierarchy, not a continuation of the old one. Now, I have not read Guerard directly, for he wrote in French, and I am relying upon what Bishop Sanborn has written on this subject. However, this seems to me to be a direct denial of the indefectibility of the local church of Rome, which must necessarily always possess the power to elect its own bishop, and thus ipso facto provide a visible head for the Church universal. Or, at best, it is an attempt to tie the indefectibility of the local church of Rome (and of the universal Church) to the continuing existence of claimants of offices that are admitted by Bishop Sanborn to be illegitimate. !!! Bishop Sanborn even quotes several theologians who employ the term "material succession" as a way of tagging the non-succession of (say) the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in Bishop Sanborn's mind these quotes become support for the notion that something essential is in fact transmitted via this "material" (i.e. "non") succession.

It's as unworthy of serious attention as, for example, the Conciliarist theory of John Gerson during the Great Western Schism. Gerson was a mystic, greatly favoured by God. His theory is today heretical, and even in his time it was scandalous and erroneous. Bishops Guerard and Sanborn may be saints. Their theory is from the devil. Such is the confusion of our time.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Why aren't the sede Bishops offering this as a true potential solution?

Most sedevacantist bishops (and I would be interested to know whom you are including in that designation - there aren't many of them) are concentrating on doing what they were consecrated to do - which is confirm children and occasionally make a priest or two.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Why do we have most of the sede Bishops moving to the sedeprivationist position?

I don't believe that is factual. Actually, it is a fact that amongst the respectable Thuc line bishops, it is the Guerardian ones who proliferate episcopal orders, thus potentially creating a preponderance of Guerardian bishops. But actual converts to Guerardianism by existing bishops? Please cite an example - I'm not aware of one.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Not to beg the question too much, what does JSD think of this resolution to the crisis? I know he's on holiday, but have you discussed this with him?

I don't recall. He'll be back next week. I got the idea from Jim Larrabee originally.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Wouldn't the Roman clergy have to be real priests?

I don't think so. If all we had left were fifteen pre-V2 deacons, wouldn't they constitute the clergy of Rome? The status of "cleric" is a canonical matter. It does not depend essentially upon possession of orders. It is a question of being admitted by legitimate authority to the body which we call the clergy. As far as I'm aware, first tonsure is the outward sign of admittance, along with the taking of the cassock.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
This whole sede position is really critically linked with time. By the time your 50, John, (and I assume that's not an overly long period of time), and this crisis is still upon us, the sede position will be proved wrong ... sort of like the Jehovah Witnesses and the 1914 end of the world scenario.

I simply don't accept this. If this crisis is still going in, say, one hundred years (i.e. there are still Modernists apparently running the Church and there is no alternative hierarchy with clear apostolic succession) then the Church herself will have failed. That won't happen. But the notion that open heretics who are promulgating an entire new religion, and suppressing the old one, constitute the hierachy of the Catholic Church, is inadmissible.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Hard questions...
Dear BarJonas

BarJonas wrote:
St. Paul to the Thesssalonians: "but first that which hindereth must be removed...and then the man of sin will be revealed". I cite from memory, so please forgive any error in exactness. What does the Church teach regarding these 2 scriptures,


Check Cornelius a Lapide for the exegesis of this. Much of it is online here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scr ... Lapide.htm

But not Thessalonians. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
Did you ever consider the fact/possibility that Pope Pius XII did indeed create Cardinals "In Pectore" that we do not know about, but through them (and their successors), The Church will emerge or resurface after a chastisement?

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John,

I couldn't agree more that the material/formal thesis is a radical novelty in the theological world. Its one appealing aspect is its lack of tie to time, and, perhaps, visibility. Bp. Sanborn is openly opposed to the "Bishop in the woods" notion, and I suspect why is his adherence to this position. Also, time is really not a factor. For the sedeprivationist, the status of the current occupants of the Chair of St. Peter can at any moment be changed by the occupants recanting their error. That and acceptance of the real Catholics would be sufficient claim to the Chair (oops, I forgot he'd have to be consecrated a bishop, too). For the sedeprivationist, this crisis could go on indefinitely without serious harm, I think. This is a stupid layman's 'bottom line' to what I understand is a very complex theological position.

Perhaps, I used a bit of hyperbole in stating that there seemed to be a shift to the sedeprivationist position of the sede clergy. Maybe, I should have said that the sedeprivationists are the most vocal. Bp. Kelly, who knows his position? Bp. Pivarunas' position; you would know that, John. However, Bp. Sanborn, maybe Bp. Dolan, Bp. McKenna, Bp. Neville accept this position.

Bp. Sanborn in a recent seminary newsletter stated that there were between 50 and 60 sede clergy in America, by far the most in the world. Additionally, there are 3 sede seminaries in America (of course, only Bp. Sanborn's is openly sedeprivationist). The largest seminary, at least this year, by headcount is Bp. Sanborn's. However, most of his seminarians are not from this country. It appears, at least superficially, that the sedeprivationist position is growing in adherents.

Pre-V2 deacons, John? Well, if the suggestion came from James Larrabee, it must be a correct possibility. As they say in the West, "we'll have to burn the stump and sift the ashes" for that possibility. Time will tell, for the "Bishop-in-the gaol in China", Roman Clergy (albeit, maybe pre-V2 deacons). We shall let the matter rest, as you certainly have offered a 'solution' to the crisis: not quite an explanation of the visibility of the Church here and now, but it shall suffice.

I wish you well in your debate with Mr. Sungenis. I suspect if this is a debate with each side opening with their 'best shot', Mr. Sungenis may well narrow his arguments to visibility and geocentrism/heliocentrism (and the Church's 'apparent' change which may well have involved the ordinary, universal magisterium).

God Bless You and debate well,

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:01 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Teresa,

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I couldn't agree more that the material/formal thesis is a radical novelty in the theological world. Its one appealing aspect is its lack of tie to time, and, perhaps, visibility.

Time shouldn’t bother us until it runs out. Until then it is merely a temptation against patience, a most necessary and glorious virtue. Visibility is an essential attribute of the Church. The day she does not possess it is the day she ceases to exist.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Bp. Sanborn is openly opposed to the "Bishop in the woods" notion, and I suspect why is his adherence to this position.

You’re probably right. He is probably also somewhat contemptuous of what he sees as “desperate” and unsophisticated solutions when he compares them with his own (as he sees it) elegant and delicate Guerardianism.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Also, time is really not a factor. For the sedeprivationist, the status of the current occupants of the Chair of St. Peter can at any moment be changed by the occupants recanting their error. That and acceptance of the real Catholics would be sufficient claim to the Chair (oops, I forgot he'd have to be consecrated a bishop, too).

Well this would be true whether Guerard’s theory were accepted or not, so that is no relative advantage to them.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
For the sedeprivationist, this crisis could go on indefinitely without serious harm, I think. This is a stupid layman's 'bottom line' to what I understand is a very complex theological position.

I think it would be unfair to suggest that they think that “crisis could go on indefinitely without serious harm.” Nor do you really think that, I’m sure.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Bp. Kelly, who knows his position? Bp. Pivarunas' position; you would know that, John.

Neither man is Guerardian/ sedeprivationist.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
However, Bp. Sanborn, maybe Bp. Dolan, Bp. McKenna, Bp. Neville accept this position.

Unless Bishop Dolan has shifted positions, he is not Guerardian. The other three only prove my point. Bishop Guerard consecrated Bishop McKenna on condition that he held the Guerardian position. In turn, Bishop McKenna consecrated Bishop Sanborn on condition that he held the Guerardian position. And Bishop McKenna consecrated Bishop Neville on condition that he held the Guerardian position too.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Bp. Sanborn in a recent seminary newsletter stated that there were between 50 and 60 sede clergy in America, by far the most in the world. Additionally, there are 3 sede seminaries in America (of course, only Bp. Sanborn's is openly sedeprivationist). The largest seminary, at least this year, by headcount is Bp. Sanborn's. However, most of his seminarians are not from this country. It appears, at least superficially, that the sedeprivationist position is growing in adherents.

I am interested in what fruit Bishop Sanborn’s seminary has actually produced since its foundation in 1985, other than Fr. Selway. Does anybody know?

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Pre-V2 deacons, John? Well, if the suggestion came from James Larrabee, it must be a correct possibility

Jim didn’t suggest deacons as such – he suggested the correct (canonical) notion of “Roman clergy,” and thus distinguished it from any consideration of Holy Orders, and pointed out that if a man once incardinated in Rome were to renounce his Modernist errors, he would regain his status as a member of the Roman clergy ipso facto.

I think that is right.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I wish you well in your debate with Mr. Sungenis. I suspect if this is a debate with each side opening with their 'best shot', Mr. Sungenis may well narrow his arguments to visibility and geocentrism/heliocentrism (and the Church's 'apparent' change which may well have involved the ordinary, universal magisterium).

God Bless You and debate well,

Thank you. Please pray for me that I maintain my peace and argue cogently and truly.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Well, if the suggestion came from James Larrabee,


Here is a long message relating to this from Jim Larrabee:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?p=786#786

I'm not sure about his idea that jurisdiction may be "recoverable" but neither was he. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:

Thank you. Please pray for me that I maintain my peace and argue cogently and truly.


We will certainly keep you in our prayers that you argue every bit as well, with peace and Catholic grandeur, as you have done throughtout this topic.

As I try to make sense of the Catholic crisis (which I really shouldn't do, it's God's Doing, and I should rest in "peace and the selfsame, I will sleep and I will rest"); I'm daily faced with the 'supposed Catholic' prelates, all the way to the top, and their continual apostasy (latest Assisi letter), and I've got to hand it to you, John, with a slightly changed line from Elizabeth Barrett Browning: How you are right, Let me count the ways!! :D

Oh, BTW, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO BABY MARY, HAPPY MARYMAS DAY!!

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Here is a informative ariticle regarding Episcopal consecration during Interregnums.




Episcopal Consecration During Interregnums
By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Lady of Ransom
September 24, 1996

Dearly beloved in Christ,

It has now been five years since His Excellency, the late Bishop Moises Carmona, bestowed episcopal consecration on me as a means to help preserve our precious Catholic Faith in these times of heresy and apostasy.

As welcome as the consecrations of traditional Catholic bishops have been amongst the majority of the faithful, there have also been some who would question the lawfulness of these consecrations on the grounds that the strict letter of the law prohibits a bishop from consecrating another bishop without a papal mandate.

It is most important that our Catholic faithful understand the theological principles involved in these matters in order to respond to those who would reject the Mass and the Sacraments offered by these bishops and the priests ordained by them.

In this pastoral letter, we will briefly review this subject and examine the following pertinent considerations:

1) the historical precedent of the consecration of bishops without papal mandate during the long inter-regnum (time between the death of one Pope and the election of another) between the reigns of Pope Clement IV and Pope Gregory X;

2) the definition of law, the nature of law, and the intrinsic cessation of law;

3) the subordination of lesser laws to the demands of higher laws.

Before we undertake each of these considerations, it is first necessary to establish that there is presently, and has been since the Second Vatican Council, a most serious crisis in the Catholic Church. Where once the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass had been offered in Catholic churches throughout the world, now in its place stands the New Mass (the Novus Ordo Missae) which does not represent a propitiatory (atonement for sin) sacrifice but a Protestant memorial of the Last Supper. In this New Mass, the very words of Christ in the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist have been substantially altered, which, according to the Decree of Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, “invalidates the consecration.” Since the advent of the Second Vatican Council, the false doctrines of ecumenism and religious indifferentism (which have been condemned by many popes and councils, especially by Pope Pius IX) have been promulgated by the ordinary, universal teaching authority of the modern hierarchy under Paul VI and John Paul II where official recognition is given not only to non-Catholic sects (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy), but also non- Christian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Judaism), to mention a few. Now, the modern hierarchy accepts these other religions, encourages their members to pray to their gods, and attempts to promote the “good” in these religions.

How can one reconcile the infallible teachings of the Magisterium (teaching authority of the pope and bishops) of the Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) with the errors which have emanated from this same Council and which have continued to be promulgated by the modern hierarchy for the past thirty years?

The proper conclusion, the only conclusion that we can come to is that the modern hierarchy of the post-Conciliar Church of Vatican II cannot and does not represent the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. For Christ promised to be with His Apostles and their successors “all days even to the consummation of the world.” To His Apostles and their successors, Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, Who would “abide with them forever.”

From the teachings of the First Vatican Council (1870), we know that the Catholic Church is infallible not only in her solemn decrees (the Pope teaching ex cathedra; the decrees of ecumenical councils) but also in her ordinary, universal teachings:

“Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith, everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of faith either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal teaching.”
To think otherwise would be to imply that Christ has failed His Church and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, Who abides with the Apostles and their successors, has abandoned the Church to fall into such manifest errors.

Under these unprecedented circumstances, we must consider the position of true Catholic bishops. Faced with the Great Apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, what were they to do? Were they to do nothing?

The opponents of the consecration of bishops in our times would answer in the affirmative. Thus, at the death of those traditional Catholic bishops who remained faithful to the true Faith, there would be no bishops left to succeed them. And without bishops, there would eventually be no priests, no Mass, and no sacraments.

Yet, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ promised His Apostles and their successors that He would “be with them all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20). In this regard the First Vatican Council taught:

“Therefore, just as He (Christ) sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father (John 20:21), so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20)
In order to preserve the Catholic Faith, the holy priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, these bishops took appropriate measures to ensure the promise of Christ “that there be shepherds and teachers in His Church until the consummation of the world.”

These measures were taken without any intention to deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, the supreme authority of the pope. For these bishops and the priests whom they consecrated have whole-heartedly professed the Catholic Faith, which includes the doctrine concerning the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Under the circumstances, the papal office, which will endure until the end of time, was vacant. Thus, there was an impossibility of obtaining a papal mandate to authorize the episcopal consecrations.

This leads us to consider the precedent found in ecclesiastical history for the consecration of bishops during the time of interregnum (the vacancy of the Apostolic See).

The following is an excerpt from Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico by Dr. Stephano Filiberto, who has a doctorate in Ecclesiastical History:

“On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote.

“After almost three years, the mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of Peter.

“During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.”

Here are a few examples of the bishops thus consecrated at the time of vacancy of the Apostolic See:

1) In Avranches, France, Radulfus de Thieville, consecrated November, 1269;
2) In Aleria, Corsica, Nicolaus Forteguerra, consecrated 1270;
3) In Antivari, Epiro (Northwestern Greece), Caspar Adam, O.P., consecrated 1270;
4) In Auxerre, France, Erardus de Lesinnes, consecrated January, 1271;
5) In Cagli, Italy, Jacobus, consecrated September 8, 1270;
6) In Le Mans, France, Geoffridus d’Asse, consecrated 1270;
7) In Cefalu, Sicily, Petrus Taurs, consecrated 1269;
8) In Cervia, Italy, Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P., consecrated 1270.
At this point, those who oppose the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops in our times might argue that the historical precedent cited was 700 years ago and that Pope Pius XII, in view of the illicit consecrations of bishops in the schismatic National Church of China, decreed that any consecration of a bishop performed without papal mandate carried with it the penalty of ipso facto excommunication for the consecrator and the consecrated.

In order to answer this objection, it is necessary to understand the nature of law. It is precisely from the lack of clear knowledge of the principles of law that many traditional Catholics fall into error. St. Thomas Aquinas defines law as an ordinance of right reason made for the common good promulgated by one who has authority in that society. Let us note “made for the common good.” In the time of Pope Pius XII, no bishop could lawfully consecrate another bishop without papal mandate, and this was for the common good of the Church. However, a law may, through the course of time and by a radical change in circumstances, cease to be for the common good and as such, cease to be binding. A law may cease in two ways: extrinsic cessation (the legislator abrogates the law) and intrinsic cessation (the law ceases to be a law, as it has ceased to be for the common good).

As Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law in Rome, taught in his commentary:

“A law ceases intrinsically when its purpose ceases; the law ceases of itself... the law ceases extrinsically when it is revoked by the Superior.

“Relative to the first way: The end (either of its purpose or its cause) of the law ceases adequately when all its purposes cease. The purpose of the law ceases contrariwise when an injurious law becomes either unjust or impossible of observance.”

Thus, in our present times, the strict observance of Pope Pius XII’s decree on the prohibition of the consecration of bishops without papal mandate would become injurious to the salvation of souls. Without bishops, there would eventually be no priests, no Mass and no sacraments.

Was this the intention of the legislator, Pope Pius XII? Would he have wished his decree to be so strictly interpreted as to eventually bring about the end of apostolic succession? Obviously not.

Regarding another aspect of law, Archbishop Cicognani has explained — once again, in his Canon Law Commentary — the nature of epikeia:

“A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which his law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen circumstances to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases, the law must be expounded, not according to its wording, but according to the intent of the lawgiver.”
The following authors provide us with additional definitions for this aspect of law — epikeia: Bouscaren and Ellis: Canon Law, 1953:

Bouscaren and Ellis: Canon Law, 1953:
“An interpretation exempting one from the law, contrary to the clear words of the law, and in accordance with the mind of the legislator.”

Prummer: Moral Theology, 1955:
“A favorable and just interpretation not of the law itself but of the mind of the legislator, who is presumed to be unwilling to bind his subjects in extraordinary cases where the observance of his law would cause injury or impose too severe a burden.”

Besson: Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909:
“A favorable interpretation of the purpose of the legislator, which supposes that he did not intend to include a particular case within the scope of his law.”

Jone and Adelman: Moral Theology, 1951:
“The reasonable taking for granted that the lawgiver would not wish to oblige in some particularly difficult case even though the case is obviously covered by the wording of the law.”

A last consideration in this matter of Pope Pius XII’s decree is found in the very word law (in Latin, jus). It is derived from the Latin words justitia (justice) and justum (just), for all laws are meant to be good, equitable and just. This is the very characteristic of law. And of all laws, the ultimate law is the salvation of souls, “salus animarum, suprema lex.”

Pope Pius XII stated in his address to the clerical students of Rome on June 24, 1939:

“Canon law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God.”
In order to spiritually survive today, we need the graces of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments. But in order to have them, we need priests, and in order to have priests, we must have bishops.

Let us thank Almighty God, Who, in His Providence, has foreseen the spiritual needs of His flock and has provided teachers and shepherds to carry on the mission of the Church “to teach all nations all things whatsoever He has commanded.”

In Christo Jesu et Maria Immaculata,
Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI


Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:18 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post II Thessalonians, Chap. 2
Yes, Teresa... this is the passage I have in mind. I don't know where to find authoritative teaching from the Church's Magisterium that would illucidate and explain this passage, as well as Our Lord's very disturbing and mysterious question re: the presence of "the Faith" (or "faith"... which is it?). I am, however, as I post this query, anchored in Our Lord's promises and His Church's teaching regarding indefectibility and Petrine succession, visibility, etc. As we prayerfully ponder all that is indicated in this thread, the gravity of it all becomes almost unbearable as we each face, practically speaking, the snares of deception and mortal sin as we move though this darkness each day. As St. Paul admonished... "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall". (I Tim. 3 DRV) I know that Our Lord has not left us as orphans or forsaken us, as He promised... but I don't think it rash to confess that in our day it is permissible to say (with humility and sincere faith) that it SEEMS like it. Is this not the very root that nourishes all of our discussions... this "apparent" abandonment vs. what we know and hold as Catholics to be true? Surely the apostles considered these things as they hid in fear following the betrayal, passion, death and burial of The Very One Whom Peter publicly confessed to be the "Christ.. The Son of The Living God". And still we see how Our Lord upbraided the disciples on the road to Emmaus for their foolishness and slowness of heart to believe. Our resurrected Lord began His conversation with them by asking..."What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad?" (St. Luke 24.17 DRV). I follow on, not as an intellectual or a novice-theologian-by-necessity, but as a simpleton... still hoping, and seeking to learn from the past.

Surely among the least of His brethren,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:33 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: II Thessalonians, Chap. 2
BarJonas wrote:
Yes, Teresa... this is the passage I have in mind. I don't know where to find authoritative teaching from the Church's Magisterium that would illucidate and explain this passage, as well as Our Lord's very disturbing and mysterious question re: the presence of "the Faith" (or "faith"... which is it?). I am, however, as I post this query, anchored in Our Lord's promises and His Church's teaching regarding indefectibility and Petrine succession, visibility, etc. As we prayerfully ponder all that is indicated in this thread, the gravity of it all becomes almost unbearable as we each face, practically speaking, the snares of deception and mortal sin as we move though this darkness each day. As St. Paul admonished... "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall". (I Tim. 3 DRV) I know that Our Lord has not left us as orphans or forsaken us, as He promised... but I don't think it rash to confess that in our day it is permissible to say (with humility and sincere faith) that it SEEMS like it. Is this not the very root that nourishes all of our discussions... this "apparent" abandonment vs. what we know and hold as Catholics to be true? Surely the apostles considered these things as they hid in fear following the betrayal, passion, death and burial of The Very One Whom Peter publicly confessed to be the "Christ.. The Son of The Living God". And still we see how Our Lord upbraided the disciples on the road to Emmaus for their foolishness and slowness of heart to believe. Our resurrected Lord began His conversation with them by asking..."What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad?" (St. Luke 24.17 DRV). I follow on, not as an intellectual or a novice-theologian-by-necessity, but as a simpleton... still hoping, and seeking to learn from the past.

Surely among the least of His brethren,

BarJonas


Hi BarJonas,

What a lovely and moving addition to this topic. As you so accurately note, it sure SEEMS like we've been abandoned, in a way. But, that, I suppose is really the great chastisement. We must, as you say, continue, almost blindly, following Our Lord in His Passion. We are certain of the end and the triumph, it is the day-to-day 'white martyrdom' that is so painful. Contrary to our ancestors, I suppose, we like to have the answers. Our answer is only to live our daily duty, "believing what Holy Mother Church has always believed, professing what She professes, reproving what She reproves". Easier said than done, most times. Prayer and the sacraments are our necessity.

I don't know about the passage and where to find some elucidation from the Fathers. I hope others can be of some assistance.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post hard questions...
How very kind of you to respond and encourage, Teresa. I do hope that some on this forum can provide some help regarding the 2 passages I mentioned. As an aside, I suggested to my wife yesterday evening that perhaps we should entertain writing a piece centered on the Swiss Guard that protects the Vatican... that is an image replete with analogous and ironic possibilities. These courageous and disciplined men are trained to protect against onslaught from without... not to guard and protect onslaught from within. How very ironically sad.

Pax Christi,

BerJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:50 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: II Thessalonians, Chap. 2
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
What a lovely and moving addition to this topic.


Could not agree more! BarJonas has expressed exactly how I see this crisis too. Although, I have to say, I am not distressed (perhaps I should be) so much as in wonder at God's loving providence in providing all that we need despite ourselves and despite all that is happening. If we seek, we find. If we ask, we receive. If we knock, the door is opened. It's true. Today as much as it always was.

The great enemy, as always, is pride. If we permit our curiosity to overcome our faith, we deserve our fate.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Quote:
it sure SEEMS like we've been abandoned, in a way.


That thought leaves me when in front of the Altar & and in His presence.

He will never leave us.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:04 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.