It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:11 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
 Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
I must admit that I am often quite troubled at the seemingly sectarian spirit in many traditional circles. SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, "motu-Mass" people, Feenyites, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, etc. But the cause of all this is clear. As Our Lord said, "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed." But I still do wish there was more unity among Traditional Catholics. We should all pray for the day that this will be accomplished.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Nicholas Evans wrote:
I must admit that I am often quite troubled at the seemingly sectarian spirit in many traditional circles. SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, "motu-Mass" people, Feenyites, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, etc. But the cause of all this is clear. As Our Lord said, "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed." But I still do wish there was more unity among Traditional Catholics. We should all pray for the day that this will be accomplished.


It will only begin to be accomplished when the True Hierarchy is restored, beginning with a Holy Pope.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Ken Gordon wrote:
Nicholas Evans wrote:
I must admit that I am often quite troubled at the seemingly sectarian spirit in many traditional circles. SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, "motu-Mass" people, Feenyites, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, etc. But the cause of all this is clear. As Our Lord said, "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed." But I still do wish there was more unity among Traditional Catholics. We should all pray for the day that this will be accomplished.


It will only begin to be accomplished when the True Hierarchy is restored, beginning with a Holy Pope.


But it must be the various "sectarian" groups which will have to restore the papacy, eventually. At some point, the Conciliar church will cross a line that even the SSPX will not cross. (Personally, I think it will be when a woman is consecrated a bishop by Roman authorities. Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps the SSPX will accept even women priests which will inevitably lead to women bishops who would be among the first women cardinals--and there is simply no way the Conciliar cardinals could resist electing the first woman pope in much the same way Americans were unable to resist electing the first black president.)

At that time, I think, it would be impossible for even the faithful who simply cannot bring themselves to admit to the truth to believe the the Conciliar church is Catholic. Then, the bishops of the world will have the strength to put aside all differences to elect the True Successor to Saint Peter in much the same way as the various factions came together to elect a true pope to end the Great Western Schism.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Ken Gordon wrote:
Nicholas Evans wrote:
I must admit that I am often quite troubled at the seemingly sectarian spirit in many traditional circles. SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, "motu-Mass" people, Feenyites, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, etc. But the cause of all this is clear. As Our Lord said, "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed." But I still do wish there was more unity among Traditional Catholics. We should all pray for the day that this will be accomplished.


It will only begin to be accomplished when the True Hierarchy is restored, beginning with a Holy Pope.


I am totally in agreement.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
"But it must be the various "sectarian" groups which will have to restore the papacy, eventually."

Interesting. But is this not borderline conclavism? By what authority, and with what jurisdiction, would these groups be able to declare a valid successor to St Peter? This is a legitimate question, and not an accusation. I admit that the depths of this crisis often go far beyond my theological training.

" At some point, the Conciliar church will cross a line that even the SSPX will not cross. (Personally, I think it will be when a woman is consecrated a bishop by Roman authorities. Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps the SSPX will accept even women priests which will inevitably lead to women bishops who would be among the first women cardinals--and there is simply no way the Conciliar cardinals could resist electing the first woman pope in much the same way Americans were unable to resist electing the first black president.)"

I myself assist at Holy Mass at an SSPX chapel, being that it is the only acceptable traditional Mass in my area. I am convinced that should an event like this occur, the SSPX clergy and faithful will finally reach the same conclusions as we have. I would hope so!

"At that time, I think, it would be impossible for even the faithful who simply cannot bring themselves to admit to the truth to believe the the Conciliar church is Catholic. Then, the bishops of the world will have the strength to put aside all differences to elect the True Successor to Saint Peter in much the same way as the various factions came together to elect a true pope to end the Great Western Schism."

The scenario makes a good deal of sense. In the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph!


Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
TKGS wrote:
At that time, I think, it would be impossible for even the faithful who simply cannot bring themselves to admit to the truth to believe the the Conciliar church is Catholic. Then, the bishops of the world will have the strength to put aside all differences to elect the True Successor to Saint Peter in much the same way as the various factions came together to elect a true pope to end the Great Western Schism.


The greatest problem I see with your scenario is that, in my opinion (backed up by investigation) there are very few Bishops in the world who are truly validly consecrated...at least those who are connected with the Concilliar Church. Montini totally invalidated the rite of "ordination" of a Bishop in 1969....which automatically invalidated the ordinations of everyone they attempted to ordain to the priesthood.

Ratzo himself isn't even a valid bishop: at best, he is a simple priest.

Here in the Western World, there are very few valid Pius XII-era bishops left alive (other than those of the Thuc or Lefebvre lines, and those may not be successors of the Apostles), and all of those I know of are around 80 years old. The minimum canonical age for un-dispensed consecration of a Bishop is 30 years old. That would mean that, dating from 1969, they would have to have been born in 1939 or before.

I place my hope of the eventual valid election of a true pope in those bishops who are living in countries formerly (or still) behind the Iron Curtain....and we have almost no information on those.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Nicholas Evans wrote:
"But it must be the various "sectarian" groups which will have to restore the papacy, eventually."

Interesting. But is this not borderline conclavism? By what authority, and with what jurisdiction, would these groups be able to declare a valid successor to St Peter? This is a legitimate question, and not an accusation. I admit that the depths of this crisis often go far beyond my theological training.


I confess a lack of theological training as well. I don't think it's "borderline conclavism"; I'd say it is "conclavism". But, frankly, is this not a neologism just as "sedevacantism"? Just as the whole world is "sedevancantist" every time the pope dies, the Catholic Church engages in "conclavism" to elect a replacement.

I remember Mr. Lane's series in The Four Marks in which he quotes St. Bellarmine (I think) describing how a new pope could be elected if there were no more electors. This is the situation in which we find ourselves in today. After all, what authority did they have to come together to elect a pope and end the Great Western Schism?

Ken Gordon wrote:
The greatest problem I see with your scenario is that, in my opinion (backed up by investigation) there are very few Bishops in the world who are truly validly consecrated...at least those who are connected with the Concilliar Church. Montini totally invalidated the rite of "ordination" of a Bishop in 1969....which automatically invalidated the ordinations of everyone they attempted to ordain to the priesthood.


The number of valid bishops isn't a concern. There need be only one. Of course, I doubt that any of the Conciliar bishops will participate and their cooperation isn't necessarily needed or even desirable.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:32 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
"Here in the Western World, there are very few valid Pius XII-era bishops left alive (other than those of the Thuc or Lefebvre lines, and those may not be successors of the Apostles), and all of those I know of are around 80 years old. The minimum canonical age for un-dispensed consecration of a Bishop is 30 years old. That would mean that, dating from 1969, they would have to have been born in 1939 or before."

What about the bishops of the various Eastern Rites?


Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Nicholas,

Here is a list of the old bishops. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html If an election were to be held, the traditional bishops could not take part in it. They have not been sent by the Church and have no status. The election would have to take place with the remaining bishops and the Roman clergy.

John Lane has put forward the idea that bishops appointed by the anti-popes could have jurisdiction due to common error. If we were to take this for a fact that would increase the number of bishops substantially who may be able to hold a council to elect a pope. John also recently put forward an interesting argument stating that the lawful clergy of a diocese could elect their own bishop, who would then have jurisdiction over that diocese. Here are John's own words:
Quote:
Yes, all jurisdiction comes from the pope. The statement of this truth in Mystici Corporis Christi (Pius XII) was regarded as a huge stumbling-block to the new definition of the Church at Vatican II, specifically in regard to "Collegiality." Montini himself held this view and Hebblethwaite (p. 312) says that Montini objected to the fact that Mystici Corporis Christi "quite wrongly" taught this truth!

One potential factor in the prospects of restoration which is not usually considered, and I have no firm ideas about how it might feature in practice, is the reality that ordinary jurisdiction is attached to offices by the pope. That is, it is attached to each diocese. The man who is appointed to a diocese receives his jurisdiction from the pope in this way. Not as something separate from his episcopal seat, but jurisdiction is in itself the essence of the episcopal seat. The office is essentially its jurisdiction. This is very important, for in the history of the Church we know that in countless cases bishops took up offices and therefore received their jurisdiction with only the tacit approval of the pope. That is, prior to any explicit papal confirmation (and often without any such explicit confirmation) they really became Successors of the Apostles. The important distinction here is that between the source of jurisdiction and the mechanism by which it is bestowed.

Now, where this potentially leads is that in any revival of Catholic life in a particular diocese (say, the Dicoese of Wykikamoocow) the clergy could elect a bishop and he would really be Bishop of Wykikamoocow with the tacit approval of the Roman Pontiff. He would of course maintain that his office was held pending papal confirmation, but in the mean time he would still really possess his office, lawfully and with its jurisdiction. He would be a Successor of the Apostles, with his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff.

I emphasise that this is only possible, and only true, because the Roman Pontiff attached jurisdiction to the office of Bishop of Wykikamoocow. It is the papal action that is essential to this factor.

Incidentally, this seems to be to have been the argument and thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre in respect of the Diocese of Campos, outlined in his remarkable letter to Bishop de Castro Mayer.

But we've covered this ground before, in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=4349
taken from viewtopic.php?f=2&t=945

If even one lawful bishop or one member of the Roman clergy were to take part, and all of the others refused, I think this would still be a legal act, and this bishop or member of the Roman clergy could elect a pope. This act could not be compared with previous reckless and illegal attempts at election.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:25 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Why Can't Trads "Just Get Along"? — Fr. Cekada
Mike wrote:
If an election were to be held, the traditional bishops could not take part in it. They have not been sent by the Church and have no status. The election would have to take place with the remaining bishops and the Roman clergy.


What is the evidence for this?

The things I've read from Gerry Matatics use the very same wording to declare that no one can even receive the sacraments from them. What does it mean, precisely, to have been "sent by the Church"? The one traditional bishop I know personally was specifically asked by a traditional bishop to receive consecration in order to perpetuate the sacraments for future generations. I summarily reject any suggestion that his consecration is invalid and I have never seen any evidence that the bishops become incapable of perpetuating the hierarchy during an extended interregnum.

As I read histories of the Great Western Schism (especially the one on this website) I come away with an understanding that once the the overwhelming majority of the traditional Catholic hierarchy and clergy come to the inescapable understanding that the Conciliar church has completely departed the Church, that traditional hierarchy, along with any undoubtedly valid Catholic bishops that may still exist, could (and would) elect a successor of Peter. Furthermore, financial woes of the Conciliar church could even escalate to such a level that even they would be forced to change course and could even, eventually, install that elected pope in the Vatican. In any case, I make no argument that, whatever the circumstances will be, the situation will not be truly miraculous. Though no one will directly see one indiviually miraculous event, the outcome will be no less miraculous than the mass convesion of the Mexican peoples after the appearance of Our Lady of Gaudelupe to Juan Diego.

It is then that the work of restoration will begin.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:54 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoration of the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
What is the evidence for this?


It's overwhelming, TKGS. My scanner isn't working or I'd post some of it, but suffice to say that a bishop without jurisdiction is not part of the hierarchy - he can't even vote at General Councils.

Quote:
What does it mean, precisely, to have been "sent by the Church"?


It means that the individual participates in the mission received by Christ from the Father and handed to the Apostles, who have handed it to their successors down through the ages. A bishop without jurisdiction is not a successor of the Apostles. This is indisputable.

Perhaps somebody could post some Dom Grea or Billot?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoration of the hierarchy
John Lane wrote:
Perhaps somebody could post some Dom Grea or Billot?


Of course. There is so much evidence there, it is even difficult to pick something out. Here some excerpts from Billot:

Quote:
Quod ad hierarchiam iure diviuo constitutam pertiuent episcopi qui singulis gregibuscum auctoritate propria et ordinaria praesident

Iurisdictio episcoporum, an sit immediate a Deo, vel immediate a Romano Pontifice, acriter disputatum est in Concilio Tridentino, et nihil tunc definitum. In Concilio vero Vaticano quaestio nequidem fuit proposita, praesertim cum ad praxim quod attinet, fere indifferens sit, sive una sive altera sententia admittatur. Nam et illi theologi qui episcopalem iurisdictionem immediate a Deo derivari volunt, adhuc eam sine dubio dicunt a Deo conferri cum vera et plena dependentia a Summo Pontifice.

Certe ad hierarchiam iurisdictionis divinitus institutam illi soli pertinent, qui ex praescripto divinae constitutionis Ecclesiae, in ipsa Ecclesia praesunt cum iurisdictione propria atque ordinaria. Atqui praeter episcopos nulli alii sunt qui has conditiones obtineant. Nam si quod dubium obvenire posset, hoc esset vel de cardinalibus, vel de praelatis religionum, vel denique de parochis.


Quod omnes episcopi locorum ordinarii babent ius sedendi cum suffragio decisivo in conciliis oecumenicis. Et quod de aliis episcopis, an de iure, an tantum ex
privilegio vocari debeant vel possint, controvertitur

Ratio asserti est quia conciliorum oecumenicoriim nomine veniunt generalia comitia eorum qui sunt positi regere Ecclesiam Dei. Tales antem, ut ex praemissis constat, sunt omnes episcopi locorum ordinarii.

...

De principibus vero nequidem esse potest quaestio, cum satis superque notum sit eos nequaquam ad ordinem hierarchicum pertinere.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Thanks Julian,

Here are some extracts from Wilhelm and Scannell (i.e. Scheeben).

Quote:
I. The promulgation of revealed truth, being an act of God as Sovereign Lord of all creatures, must be made in the name of His sovereign authority and by ambassadors invested with a share of that authority. Their commission must consist of an appointment emanating from God, and they must be armed with the necessary credentials and the power of exacting Faith from those to whom they are sent. Thus qualified, the promulgation may be technically described as official, authentic, and authoritative: official, because made by persons whose proper office it is to publish — like heralds in human affairs; authentic, because with the commission to promulgate there is connected a public dignity and authority, in virtue of which the holder guarantees the truth of his utterances, and makes them legally credible — as in the case of public witnesses, such as registrars; authoritative, because the holder of the commission is the representative of God, invested with authority to exact Faith from his subordinates, and to keep efficient watch over its maintenance.

II. A threefold Divine co-operation is required for the attainment of the end of Revelation: the promulgation must be made under Divine guarantee, Divine legitimation and Divine sanction. The object of the Apostolate is to generate an absolute, supernatural, and Divine certainty of the Word of God. Moreover, the promulgating body claims a full and unconditional submission of the mind to the truths which it teaches. But this certainty could not be produced, and this submission could not be demanded, except by an infallible body. The intrinsic and invisible quality of infallibility is not enough to convey the authenticity and authority of the Apostolate to the knowledge of mankind — some external mark is required. Christ proved the authority of His mission by miracles, and then instituted the Apostolate. His words and works were sufficient evidence for those who actually witnessed them. For us some other proof is necessary; and this may be either some special miracle accompanying the preaching of the Gospel, or the general moral miracle of the continuity and efficiency of the Apostolate. This subject will be treated at greater length in the treatise on Faith. The sanction of the Apostolate consists in the rewards and punishments reserved hereafter for those who accept or reject its teaching, and is the complement of its authority. Submission to Revelation is the fundamental condition of salvation, and consequently submission to the Apostolate, which is the means of transmitting Revelation, must be enforced by the same sanctions as submission to Revelation itself.

III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a “teaching with authority” — that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained.


And

Quote:
I. The power to teach is vested by right, as well as by the institution of Christ, in those same dignitaries who are appointed to be the instruments of the Holy Ghost for the communication of His grace to mankind (potestas ordinis) and who are the representatives of Christ for the government of His kingdom upon earth (potestas jurisdictionis): in a word, the Apostolate belongs to the Hierarchy. But the Apostolate is not only intimately connected with the two above-named functions of the Hierarchy: it is also itself an hierarchical function. As such, its value and importance depend on the rank held by the members of the Hierarchy by right either of ordination or of jurisdiction. The Apostolate is not, however, an independent hierarchical function. It springs from and forms an essential part of the other two. To enlighten the mind with heavenly truth and to generate Faith are acts belonging to the very nature of the Power of Orders, inasmuch as in this way the gifts of the vivifying Spirit are dispensed. And the same may be said of the Power of Jurisdiction, for the noblest part of this power is to feed the flock of Christ on Faith, and so to guide it to salvation.

II. We have already distinguished two functions of the Apostolate : (1) the authentic witnessing to the doctrine of Christ, and (2) the authoritative enforcement of it. The first element belongs to the Power of Orders, the second to the Power of Jurisdiction.

1. The act of witnessing to the doctrine of Christ is not in itself an act of jurisdiction, but rather, as being a communication of grace and of supernatural life, belongs to the Power of Orders. The function of this power is to transmit the Grace of Christ, especially the grace of Faith, while the Apostolate transmits the truth of Christ and provides the subject-matter of the act of Faith. The members of the Hierarchy invested with the power of communicating the gifts of Grace in general and the gift of Faith in particular, are therefore also the instruments of the Holy Ghost in communicating the doctrine of Faith. The grace which they receive in their ordination consecrates them for and entitles them to both functions, so that they are, in a twofold sense, “the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” Hence the witnesses of the Apostolate, which was instituted to produce supernatural Faith, are invested with a supernatural character, a public dignity, and a power based upon an intimate union with the Holy Ghost. They represent the testimony of the Holy Ghost promised by Christ, because they are the instruments of the Holy Ghost. They cannot, however, individually claim infallibility, as will presently be shown.

The Power of Orders has different degrees which constitute the Hierarchy of Orders. To each of these degrees belongs a corresponding share in the right and power to expound revealed doctrine. The High Priests (the Pontiffs or Priests of the first order, i.e. the Bishops) alone possess the fulness of the Power of Orders, and are by themselves independent of any other order in the performance of their functions. Hence, in virtue of their Orders, the Bishops alone are, in a perfect sense, “Fathers of the Faithful,” independent teachers and authentic witnesses in their own right. The subordinate members of the Hierarchy of Orders receive their orders from the Bishops, and are mere auxiliaries. Thus the Deacons are exclusively called to assist in the functions of the higher orders, and the Priests of the second order, i.e. simple Priests, in the ordinary sense of the word, act as the Bishop's assistants, and often with his positive co-operation. Their participation in the Apostolate is limited, like their participation in the Power of Orders, and may be expressed in the same terms.

2. The act of imposing the doctrine of Christ, that is, of commanding adhesion to it, clearly appertains to the Power of Jurisdiction, especially to that branch of it which is called the Power of Teaching. Bishops, in virtue of their consecration, are called to the government of the Church; but this does not of itself constitute them rulers of any particular portion of the Christian flock, and therefore does not give them the right to command submission to their doctrinal utterances. This right is the result of, and is co-extensive with their jurisdiction, i.e. with their actual participation in the government of the Church. On the other hand, the right to act as authentic witnesses and as simple doctors, not imposing submission to their doctrine, is independent of their governing any flock, and may extend beyond the particular flock actually committed to their charge.

In general, the power of authoritative teaching implies complete jurisdiction over the domain of doctrine, and therefore includes (i) the right of administration, which entitles the holder of it to use the external means necessary for the propagation of the doctrine, especially to send out authorized missionaries; (2) the right of superintendence, together with the right of punishing, entitling the holder to forbid, prevent, or punish all external acts opposed to the propagation of the true doctrine; (3) judicial and legislative powers, including the right of prescribing external acts relating to the Faith, but having for their principal function the juridical and legal definition and prescription of the Faith. This last is the highest exercise of authoritative teaching, because it affects the innermost convictions of the mind; it is eminently Divine and supernatural, like the exercise of jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance, and like this, too, it implies that the holder represents Christ in a very special manner.

The right of authoritative teaching has various degrees. Simple Bishops, placed over only a portion of the Christian flock, possess only a partial and subordinate, and hence an imperfect and dependent, Power of Teaching. The Chief of the Episcopate, as Pastor of the entire flock, alone possesses the universal and sovereign, and hence complete and independent, Power of Teaching, to which the Bishops themselves must submit. The difference between his power and theirs appears most strikingly in the legal force of their respective doctrinal decisions. The Pope's decisions, as Christ's chief judge upon earth, alone have the force of laws, binding generally; whereas those given by the Bishops have only the force of a judicial sentence, binding the parties in the suit. In matters of Faith Bishops cannot make any laws for their respective dioceses, because a law requiring assent to a truth cannot be more restricted than truth itself, and, moreover, a law of this kind must proceed from an infallible lawgiver. Universality and infallibility are not the attributes of individual Bishops, but of the Pope alone; and therefore Bishops can make merely provisional laws for their own dioceses, subject to the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff. It is not their business to give final decisions in controversies concerning the Faith, or to solve the doubts still tolerated in the Church — their ministry is not even indispensable for these purposes. They are, indeed, judges empowered to decide whether a doctrine is in conformity with generally received dogma, but as individuals they cannot make a dogma or law of Faith. They wield the executive, not the legislative power. In short, although the Bishops are pre-eminently witnesses and doctors and, within certain limits, also judges of the Faith, yet their Head, the Pope, has the distinctive attributes of supreme promulgator of doctrine, universal judge in matters of Faith, arbiter in controversies of Faith, and “Father and Teacher of all Christians” (Council of Florence).


And

Quote:
II. The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him – it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony. Again, the Pope's authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be destroyed if under any circumstances the whole body fell into heresy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoration of the hierarchy
John Lane wrote:
TKGS wrote:
What is the evidence for this?


It's overwhelming, TKGS. My scanner isn't working or I'd post some of it, but suffice to say that a bishop without jurisdiction is not part of the hierarchy - he can't even vote at General Councils.


I am reading these quotes (except for the one in Latin) but I am still not really understanding.

Were Eastern bishops allowed to vote at the Council of Florence? Who gave them valid jurisdiction?

Who voted in the Council of Constance to resolve the Great Western Schism? Everything I read seems to indicate that bishops from every country, even those appointed by the anti-popes, were involved. Who gave them jurisdiction? The theologians seem to agree that it, although there was a valid pope throughout the Schism, it would not have been impossible for the Crisis to have been resolved in the way it was and that an interregnum could have lasted throughout the entire time. Thus, the Council would have met (and voted) with virtually no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and it certainly did meet and vote with bishops who did not have jurisdiction in the ordinary sense.

How did bishops who clearly excommunicate themselves by teaching and preaching the Arian Heresy (some say as much as 90% of the hierarchy), thus depriving themselves of any right to ordinary jurisdiction resolve the Arian Crisis?

The crisis today is a novel one, but it seems that there is precedent to allow for bishops who do not have jurisdiction in the ordinary sense to exercise power that would they would not ordinarily exercise in extraordinary circumstances. The facts are pretty clear that there are no Conciliar bishops exercising power today who possess ordinary jurisdiction since none of them have been appointed by a true pope. The ones who do possess ordinary jurisdiction (and were appointed by undoubtedly valid popes) no longer actually exercise that jurisdiction.

Clearly, I do not understand the nuances involved and will recuse myself from further discussion, though I will continue to read the comments posted. Thank you.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:59 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
I am anxious to see the reply to your questions TKGS. As everyone knows I too have a difficult time understanding these deep meanings of words used by theologians and popes.

When a pope dies, does the church cease to exist, it seems that way to some. Who gives jurisdiction to elect a new pope?
Christ is the head of the Church, and He guides it from Heaven is my understanding, the Church always supplies jurisdiction, through Christ.

Also I have been doing a little reading myself, and wonder what this Bull actually means, and how it applies to our crisis today, if it does apply at all.

The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 This Bull contains the reference to the two swords, the spiritual and the temporal.
• Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers the spiritual and the secular. Luke 22; 38 – Matthew 26; 52. The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.
• This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one.
[From the Bull "Unam Sanctam" November 18, 1302]

Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorium
469
And we are taught by evangelical words that in this power of his are two swords, namely spiritual and temporal. . . . Therefore, each is in the power of the Church, that is, a spiritual and a material sword. But the latter, indeed, must be exercised for the Church, the former by the Church. The former (by the hand) of the priest, the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. For it is necessary that a sword be under a sword and that temporal authority be subject to spiritual power. . . . It is necessary that we confess the more clearly that spiritual power precedes any earthly power both in dignity and nobility, as spiritual matters themselves excel the temporal. . . . For, as truth testifies, spiritual power has to establish earthly power, and to judge if it was not good. . . . Therefore, if earthly power deviates, it will be judged by spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual deviates, by its superior; but if the supreme (spiritual power deviates), it can be judged by God alone, not by man, as the Apostle testifies: "The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one" [1 Cor. 2:15]. But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: "Whatsoever you shall bind" etc. [ Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, "whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God" [cf.Rom. 13:2], unless as a Manichaean he imagines that there are two beginnings, which we judge false and heretical, because, as Moses testifies, not "in the beginnings" but "in the beginning God created the heaven and earth" [cf. Gen. 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:

I am reading these quotes (except for the one in Latin) but I am still not really understanding.


TKGS,

I will try to join John and Julian later in providing some more sources. But, for now how about working this out reasonably. Our Lord sent the bishops into the world, and the concept of being sent has been critical in being authorized by the Church in exercising jurisdiction. This also goes for priests being sent by their bishop and being given a canonical mission. This is they way the Church started with Our Lord sending the apostles, and they in turn sending bishops, and each bishop sending priests. In every case, you have a connection to the original "Sender" who was Our Lord, who began these lines which leads always to Him as the source of this authority is always Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

In the 1980's Catholics were extremely concerned about the predicament and began to insure for themselves in their respective groups, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, for example, validly consecrated bishops. In order to accomplish this, they would consecrate bishops on their own initiative without papal approval, which was of course not possible anyway. But, in doing this, they created a situation in which bishops existed who were not sent with the approval of the pope. They were on their own. If you look through this site, you will find a full list of all of the traditional, or those claiming to be traditional bishops, in the world: http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html There are hundreds scattered everywhere, and could even be more that are not on this list.

This is not to say that there is not an argument for at least some of them to have become bishops without papal approval or an election of clergy in a diocese. That is really another topic altogether. This one issue we are discussing is whether they have jurisdiction or any legal status in the Church. This summary by Fr. McGovern is a very good explanation of the subject, easy to read and succinct: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=852

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
I think some of this is based on the words of Our Lord in John 10:1, "AMEN, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. "

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Ken Gordon wrote:
I think some of this is based on the words of Our Lord in John 10:1, "AMEN, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. "


Yes, I realize that too, however with The Bull Unam Sanctam, can we all agree that new church, the novus ordo have gone astray, so why is it that the SSPX, for example, (as well as some others) expect them to have authority to excomunicate, or give jurisdiction to send anyone as Christ sent the apostles.

The mission of the Church has always been the salvation of souls and, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church, through the Divine Law. Speaking now of all the traditional Bishops who are properly consecrated; consecrated with or without a mandate from the pope, since this has been impossible for many, many years in the eyes of man, but in the eyes of God, seconds.

It is God's Will the Church continue to save souls.

It seems to me, the first step to restoring the hierarchy is to agree, the novus ordo has absolutely no authority, get behind the traditional Bishops, instead of fighting them. As long as the Bishops are not making new doctrines, but keeping the faith, we must trust in God, after all it is His Church and He is the head.

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
"It seems to me, the first step to restoring the hierarchy is to agree, the novus ordo has absolutely no authority, get behind the traditional Bishops, instead of fighting them. As long as the Bishops are not making new doctrines, but keeping the faith, we must trust in God, after all it is His Church and He is the head."

Myrna, I have to believe that most on this forum agree the new robber church has no authority at all. I for one am a sede because of this fact. It is out of self defense-I would lose the faith if I thought the novus ordo gang was the Catholic Church. If it is Catholic, the church is a ruse. However, which of these non-jurisdictional Bishops are we to follow? They don't get along themselves. This has been my bone of contention over the past year as you know. The situations they fiond themselves in almost demands that they govern, yet they have no authority to do this. They quibble, they denounce each other, they contend that we must have nothing to do with this one or that one, they decry each others seminaries etc. etc. yet we are supposed to get behind them. I have never been so disillusioned by the Trad Bishops in my life asa I am this very day. I have tried my best to get behind them, and for my trouble I get scandalized and hurt. I have great respect for your undying faith and resolve Myrna; perhaps some day I will join you but today is not that day.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Mike wrote:
In the 1980's Catholics were extremely concerned about the predicament and began to insure for themselves in their respective groups, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, for example, validly consecrated bishops. In order to accomplish this, they would consecrate bishops on their own initiative without papal approval, which was of course not possible anyway.


I did not want to continue in this because I don't think your arguments make any sense and wanted to simply digest all of the arguments. But I think I have to reply one last time. I realize that this is a complex issue, but it seems you are making it more complex than it should be. The Church is not in ordinary times. The Church is in the midst of an interregnum that has lasted longer than any other.

But the point is that there was at least one instance in which there was an interregnum for nearly three years. Is it reasonable to believe that, for three years, no vacancy was filled in the world? I don't believe it. Furthermore, throughout history, and especially during the first 300 years of the Church, I've never seen evidence (not saying that there isn't any) that the Bishop of Rome specifically approved every single (or even many) bishops as vacancies occurred throughout the Empire through death and martyrdom. I've been told that there was a "tacit approval" from Rome to fill these vacancies and to consecrate bishops. That may very well be true but a newly elected valid pope would, I think, validate these traditional bishops elections and consecrations and, furthermore, praise them for preserving the Holy Catholic Church.

As for needing every single traditional bishop to resolve the issue, that too is not sound reasoning. The history of General Councils show that the only one in which every single bishop might have attended was held in Jerusalem by the Apostles themselves. All of the others were held and action taken on doctrinal and disciplinary matters even though some or, in some cases, many bishops did not attend or have a representative present.

It just seems that the criteria that all of you contend is required says that the minute the last Pius XII bishop dies, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. As for which traditional bishop to follow? Until those traditional bishops stop, as Mr. Short says, "quibbling" it really doesn't matter to the faithful because they're not going to cooperate any time soon anyway. But when (not if) the world's traditional bishops do finally unite for the Faith and the good of all mankind, will the faithful follow or will the faithful quibble over procedure. Frankly, if the world's traditional bishops unite in the absence of a pope to elect one, that would truly be a miraculous sign; at least as miraculous as the mass conversions in Mexico after the appearance of the Blessed Virgin to Juan Diego.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:
It just seems that the criteria that all of you contend is required says that the minute the last Pius XII bishop dies, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.


TKGS,

I would be interested in any statement from this forum that you can produce from this forum to support your idea as stated above. If you want me to save you the time, there is not any. This is your idea.

From the your last post, I really believe you do not understand the nature of the hierarchy. It seems to me that you are saying that we need a new definition of the hierarchy to replace the existing one in the approved texts. If the traditional bishops have authority in the Church, and have the right to elect a pope, then this would be a new hierarchy. This is a very radical idea.

I gave you a quote from Fr. McGovern. Have you read it? Do you agree with this statement of Catholic teaching that he presents?

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Dear TKGS,

To answer your questions:

1. The Church continues when the pope dies. See above, in Wilhelm and Scannell, the distinction between indefectibility of the pope and of the Church.
2. The pope's jurisdiction comes directly from Christ when he accepts a legitimate election. All subordinate jurisdiction comes from the pope.
3. In reading history you need first to be equipped with a firm grasp of sacred doctrine. With this foundation you will see that in each case episcopal jurisdiction came from the pope, only the means varied. Tacit approval of a consecration and appointment to an existing episcopal office is one such means. This is essentially what happened with the Greeks also at Florence (they rejoined the Church). During the interregnum of three years many bishoprics remained vacant, some were filled, and those that were filled were confirmed subsequently by the pope, I believe.
4. In many cases in history voters in papal conclaves were of two kinds - proper voters and consultative voters. The latter included some of the laity of Rome, for example. Their votes did not contribute to the actual election, but were informative only, showing that the person elected was approved by the faithful as somebody of good life etc., who would be accepted peacefully by the whole Church. The same thing occurred at Constance, where simple priests voted (i.e theologians).
5. Nobody has said that all of the bishops need to cooperate in electing a pope. Indeed, it might conceivably be none of them, because Bellarmine (and Dom Grea follows him, I think), says that it is legitimate for the junior Roman clergy to elect if the senior Roman clergy (the cardinals) are unavailable.
6. I agree that the crisis will end miraculously, but this miracle will include the perfect compliance with all of the necessary conditions laid down originally by Our Lord in order to maintain the continuance of the Church as the same body established by Him 2000 years ago.

Any number of scenarios might occur which would fulfill these requirements, so there is no problem, just a mystery until the events occur.

For example, imagine that the mess in the Novus Ordo gets even worse - and this is pretty much inevitable as the history of it so far shows, and the parallel histories of the Protestant sects show - and there is some giant crisis as a result. This may or not include the events described in prophecy concerning the Antichrist. In any case, God pours forth His irresistible graces and mass conversions occur, including amongst the Roman clergy. The Novus "pope" dies or is rejected by the faithful, and a new election is held. It may well be that as with Constance unclear ideas are common, so men who do not properly meet the definition of electors participate in a conclave, a pope is elected, he accepts, and he proceeds to restore the Church, fill vacancies, etc. His peaceful acceptance by the whole Church proves that the necessary conditions for a valid election have been fulfilled. All is solved, at least sufficiently.

What would then happen is that scholars would investigate the factual data to see what had really happened, and to explain it. This is what happened after Constance, and it wasn't until the late Nineteenth century that consensus began to form about the correct understanding of the resolution of that crisis, the Great Western Schism. It is still a matter of legitimate dispute, however. But that doesn't matter, all can see that whatever the specific explanation, the requirements for the continuity of the Church were met one way or another.

The traditional bishops don't possess ordinary jurisdiction and are not Successors of the Apostles. They are somewhat similar to titular bishops. All of the respectable ones know this and are clear about it too. They can't appoint a priest to a parish, so they certainly can't elect a pope. These things are simply and absolutely outside of their capacity. Nor can they command obedience from the faithful to any law they decide to promulgate. The only obedience they can secure is that which flows from the voluntary submission of priests to them, for as long as that lasts. This is why they generally obtain a signed agreement from ordinands securing their submission for some definite period after ordination. In the case of Bishop Dolan and Bishop Sanborn this is three years, I believe. The CMRI is somewhat different as it is constituted as a quasi religious society, so the attachment might be enduring, but it can't be permanent as a proper religious society can secure (i.e. those with solemn vows). Simple vows are the most that could be secured. In the case of the laity there is no basis for obedience at all. They are subject, like everybody else, only to the laws of the Church promulgated by bishops and popes prior to V2.

We must still encourage unity and peace, and do what we can to maintain it, for the good of souls and the edification of the Church. We must also hold fast and not permit the disturbances of our time to shake us and direct us down unproved paths. Conclavism is pride, I think, with the inevitable consequences that pride in action always has.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
John Lane wrote:
Dear TKGS,

To answer your questions...



Thank you. I will continue to read, reflect, and try to understand. That's why I am on this forum as it truly is the only one that actually promotes Catholic education.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:45 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Mike wrote:
Quote:
It just seems that the criteria that all of you contend is required says that the minute the last Pius XII bishop dies, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.


TKGS,

I would be interested in any statement from this forum that you can produce from this forum to support your idea as stated above. If you want me to save you the time, there is not any. This is your idea.

From the your last post, I really believe you do not understand the nature of the hierarchy. It seems to me that you are saying that we need a new definition of the hierarchy to replace the existing one in the approved texts. If the traditional bishops have authority in the Church, and have the right to elect a pope, then this would be a new hierarchy. This is a very radical idea.

I gave you a quote from Fr. McGovern. Have you read it? Do you agree with this statement of Catholic teaching that he presents?


Mike,

Don't take what I say as a personal afront to you. Until John Lane wrote his post above, it truly did seem as if some of the posts were suggesting that there is no hope of restoring the papacy. If you read the posts above without the knowledge that you have it is entirely reasonable to come to that conclusion, not on the basis of any one "statement", but on the basis of the whole. Yes, you are right: It was my idea.

You are also right: I don't understand the "nature of the hierarchy" as explained here. I still don't even after reading these posts. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But that is also why I am not a priest, bishop, theologian, or canon lawyer. It doesn't matter whether or not I "agree" with Fr. McGovern's statements. I will accept what the Church teaches. I appologize for upsetting you and I do not want you to consider my honest questions and comments to be an attack on your Catholicity or faithfulness to Holy Mother Church.

I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling; and I have a lot of fear and I tremble at this current crisis. I really believe it will be resolved (provided this is not the "Great Apostasy" we were warned about--and I pray that this is merely a great apostasy) and I pray that all traditional Catholics will be able to recognize the resolution when it comes. Sadly, I think that many traditional Catholics will reject even a mass conversion on the part of the apostate church and I pray that I will not be among them.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:32 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Dear TKGS,

Mike won't be offended, he is just being strong and clear. I wish everybody were as strong and clear in defence of the faith.

I know you have good Catholic instincts. We've known each other for a few years and I trust your good will.

These forums have a central purpose, and that is to restore tradition in respect of learning from the Church. John Daly said some years ago at a conference at the Turning Stone Resort that trust in the Church had been grievously eroded by the crisis. We aim to restore it, to the small extent that we can. We also aim to restore knowledge of how it is that Catholics should learn from the Church, and further, how to use that knowledge to address problems or mysteries we face in this weird and wicked era.

This is why we place texts into the public sphere, and we base everything we say about the crisis upon them. It is also why we are intolerant of any other approach. I know you have noticed that we are not intolerant of people disagreeing with us, but with people who don't have, or won't demonstrate, a Catholic basis for their views. In service of the common good this intolerance is necessary. Unless it is enforced, the forums will just be like every other forums out there and we wouldn't have a reason to keep them open.

I think you understand all this, and I thank you for your candour and charity.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
John Lane wrote:
This is why we place texts into the public sphere, and we base everything we say about the crisis upon them. It is also why we are intolerant of any other approach. I know you have noticed that we are not intolerant of people disagreeing with us, but with people who don't have, or won't demonstrate, a Catholic basis for their views. In service of the common good this intolerance is necessary. Unless it is enforced, the forums will just be like every other forums out there and we wouldn't have a reason to keep them open.

I think you understand all this, and I thank you for your candour and charity.


And this is why I value this forum so much. It is also what makes this current Crisis so insidious. Catholic laymen shouldn't have to really know and understand many of these kinds of issues.


Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:
Mike,

Don't take what I say as a personal afront to you. Until John Lane wrote his post above, it truly did seem as if some of the posts were suggesting that there is no hope of restoring the papacy. If you read the posts above without the knowledge that you have it is entirely reasonable to come to that conclusion, not on the basis of any one "statement", but on the basis of the whole. Yes, you are right: It was my idea.

You are also right: I don't understand the "nature of the hierarchy" as explained here. I still don't even after reading these posts. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But that is also why I am not a priest, bishop, theologian, or canon lawyer. It doesn't matter whether or not I "agree" with Fr. McGovern's statements. I will accept what the Church teaches. I appologize for upsetting you and I do not want you to consider my honest questions and comments to be an attack on your Catholicity or faithfulness to Holy Mother Church.

I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling; and I have a lot of fear and I tremble at this current crisis. I really believe it will be resolved (provided this is not the "Great Apostasy" we were warned about--and I pray that this is merely a great apostasy) and I pray that all traditional Catholics will be able to recognize the resolution when it comes. Sadly, I think that many traditional Catholics will reject even a mass conversion on the part of the apostate church and I pray that I will not be among them.


TKGS,

I do not take any personal offense. Perhaps it was my own lack of clarification, which may have led to this confusion. I was urging you to read Fr. McGovern's teaching because it is standard teaching on the Church's teaching of Apostolicity. My question to you was posed as one which would hopefully make you form your ideas with the use of approved texts. I have read your posts for years on this board and on others, and I find you to be a good Catholic so I do not have doubt of your good will and orthodoxy.

John has moved the text from McGovern to the others I posted about Apostolicity. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=984 These texts are useful in that a dogmatic theology manual will not usually go into as much detail as these texts. It is good that John has moved this to put all of these texts together, because each complements each other.

It is my opinion that this teaching about Apostolicity is very important in our times. First, because it directly applies to our understanding of how the a pope can once again be elected after such an long interregnum. Secondly, it helps Catholics understand who the Hierarchy are, and protects Catholics against potential usurpers. Third, it helps Catholics to have a better understanding of who the traditional bishops are, and how to distinguish them from the Hierarchy.

One last point of clarification. No matter what happens in the coming days, the Hierarchy will endure to the end of the world. It is impossible for the Hierarchy to be fully extinguished. Secondly, the diocese of Rome cannot fully fail. There must be some member of the Roman clergy who still retains the Faith. The mechanism for electing a Pope will live on through whatever is left of the Hierarchy or Roman Clergy and will continue until the end of the world.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Here's Sylvester Hunter, S.J., on papal elections.

Quote:
In ancient times all Bishops were chosen by election, the electors being the principal clergy of the city; and in the case of the Roman See this discipline still prevails. Formerly, the lay people of Rome and the Emperors claimed to have some undefined share in the elections; the toleration of which claims may be explained by the consideration that it would usually be inexpedient for a person to be elected who was not acceptable to those whom it would be his duty to govern in temporals : but in 1179, Pope Alexander III. put the matter on its present footing, and since that date the right has belonged exclusively to the College of Cardinals, who are the Bishops of six sees in the neighbourhood of Rome, with the parish priests of the City itself, and certain deacons attached to the churches.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoration of the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
John Lane wrote:
TKGS wrote:
What is the evidence for this?


It's overwhelming, TKGS. My scanner isn't working or I'd post some of it, but suffice to say that a bishop without jurisdiction is not part of the hierarchy - he can't even vote at General Councils.


I am reading these quotes (except for the one in Latin) but I am still not really understanding.

Were Eastern bishops allowed to vote at the Council of Florence? Who gave them valid jurisdiction?

Who voted in the Council of Constance to resolve the Great Western Schism? Everything I read seems to indicate that bishops from every country, even those appointed by the anti-popes, were involved. Who gave them jurisdiction? The theologians seem to agree that it, although there was a valid pope throughout the Schism, it would not have been impossible for the Crisis to have been resolved in the way it was and that an interregnum could have lasted throughout the entire time. Thus, the Council would have met (and voted) with virtually no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and it certainly did meet and vote with bishops who did not have jurisdiction in the ordinary sense.

How did bishops who clearly excommunicate themselves by teaching and preaching the Arian Heresy (some say as much as 90% of the hierarchy), thus depriving themselves of any right to ordinary jurisdiction resolve the Arian Crisis?

The crisis today is a novel one, but it seems that there is precedent to allow for bishops who do not have jurisdiction in the ordinary sense to exercise power that would they would not ordinarily exercise in extraordinary circumstances. The facts are pretty clear that there are no Conciliar bishops exercising power today who possess ordinary jurisdiction since none of them have been appointed by a true pope. The ones who do possess ordinary jurisdiction (and were appointed by undoubtedly valid popes) no longer actually exercise that jurisdiction.

Clearly, I do not understand the nuances involved and will recuse myself from further discussion, though I will continue to read the comments posted. Thank you.


I ran across this a while back, and it just came to mind here. It may be of some interest:

ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, Rev. S. B. SMITH, D.D. 1887

Quote:
70. Q. What persons should be called to provincial or national councils, also in the United States?

A. 1. All the Bishops of the province or nation. They are obliged to come in person, unless they are lawfully hindered. If they are lawfully hindered, they are bound to send procurators to represent them. 2. Apostolic administrators appointed by the Holy See for dioceses whose bishops, though still living, are either unable or incapacitated to govern the diocese. 3. Vicars-capitulars with us administrators of dioceses sede vacante. 4. Vicars-apostolic, who exercise jurisdiction in districts not yet erected into bishoprics. (Conc. PI. BaIt. II, n. 60, note 1.) 5. Cathedral chapters; they have a right to be present at the council through their delegates or representatives chosen by themselves. 6. Abbots possessed of jurisdiction not only over their monasteries, but also quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over the secular clergy and laics in a certain pact of the province or nation.

These six classes alone have a right to be called de jure to the councils in question. For they alone possess episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. However, by custom, also in the United States, the following persons are also called to the councils: I. Coadjutor and auxiliary bishops of the province or of the nation, and also strange bishops who may happen to be in the province or country at the time: 2. Provincials of regulars; 3. Rectors of major seminaries , 4. Mitred abbots who have jurisdiction merely over their monasteries, and not over seculars; 5. Finally, those persons whose services the bishops wish to make use of -v.g., those priests whom bishops usually take along with them to the council, as their theologians or canonists. besides, all priests or ecclesiastics who think themselves injured may present their grievances to the council. Laymen are sometimes invited to attend some of the sittings, either to act as notaries, as was done in several of the Prov. C. of Westminster, England; or also in order to explain certain matters: thus, several eminent lawyers were admitted to one of the public sittings of the First Provo. C. of Baltimore, in order to explain certain points of the civil law relation to Church property.

Not all persons, however, who are invited to the Council have a right to a decisive vote. For to cast a decisive vote is to concur in making laws for the province or nation, and is therefore an act of episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Hence, by the general law of the Church, only those have a decisive vote who exercise episcopal jurisdiction in the province or nation, namely:

1 The bishops of the province or nation; 2. Apostolic administrators of dioceses; 3. Vicars-apostolic of districts; 4. Vicars-capitulars or administrators of dioceses 5. Abbots possessed of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over the secular clergy and laity in a certain part of the province or nation.


Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
I still have one question that I don't think has been adequately answered.

At the end of the Great Western Schism, it is my understanding that bishops from throughout the world convened at Constance. At the time there were three claimants to the papal throne, each exercising power though two of them, being anti-popes, would not actually have jurisdiction, thus none of the bishops appointed by them would have exercised jurisdiction.

Though Mr. Lane partially explained that a precise understanding of the resolution of that crisis is still subject to legitimate dispute, it seems undeniable that, in spite of the quotes that and reviews concerning the nature of the hierarchy and who can legitimately vote at a General Council, bishops who were not validly appointed, were not true members of the hierarchy, were not true successors of the Apostles were, nonetheless, an essential element at the Council and were accepted by the Church as having a voice and a vote. The crisis was finally ended because the Church permitted bishops who lacked true jurisdiction to exercise jurisdictional authority to re-establish an undisputed pope.

I am not trying to be difficult here. I just cannot see (due to my own stubborness I am sure) how the problem of jurisdiction is an impediment to ending the current interregnum when we seem to have a precident in history for a very similar problem. The quotes do not appear to address a crisis in which all of the bishops who possess valid jurisdiction (assuming, of course, that any of them still actually have the Catholic Faith) refuse to act to give the Church a Catholic Head. Is it not possible that the current Crisis may be resolved in a way that is not contemplated by the theologians but only truly understood in the centuries to come--as happened at the conclusion of the Great Western Schism?


Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
I think it's important to keep in mind that today's "traditional" bishops were not even appointed by an antipope.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:29 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
bishops who were not validly appointed, were not true members of the hierarchy, were not true successors of the Apostles were, nonetheless, an essential element at the Council and were accepted by the Church as having a voice and a vote.


Well, you need to distinguish what some or many men thought at the time from what actually was the case. Cardinal Franzelin believed that most of those present were confused or deceived about the true situation, but that doesn't change the fact that what really happened was that the Council was called by a true pope and the cardinals appointed by that same true pope actually effected the election, everybody else's voice being non-essential and therefore adding nothing to the process which actually counted. Cardinal Billot, Franzelin's student, agreed with that view. I don't have an opinion on this, because it's beyond my competence and it doesn't matter anyway. An alternative is the "sanatio in radice" solution - that is, the acclamation of the Church actually elected Pope Martin V. One of the solutions is correct, and it doesn't matter which. On whichever of them you base the conclusion, the Church retained her hierarchy through the forty years and she continued therefore to be the same institution she had always been.

Quote:
The crisis was finally ended because the Church permitted bishops who lacked true jurisdiction to exercise jurisdictional authority to re-establish an undisputed pope.


I hope you can see now that this doesn't follow.

Quote:
I am not trying to be difficult here. I just cannot see (due to my own stubborness I am sure) how the problem of jurisdiction is an impediment to ending the current interregnum when we seem to have a precident in history for a very similar problem.


There's no problem with them being invited to an imperfect general council and voting. There's no problem with them thinking their votes count. The problem is of an entirely different order, which is that without genuine members of the Roman Clergy, and/or genuine bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, the election will not be an election by the same visible institution founded by Christ and which will persist with all of its essential charisms and constitutional features until the end of time. Instead, it would be a new Church, with more similarities to the true Church than the New Church has, but nevertheless a new church itself.

Quote:
Is it not possible that the current Crisis may be resolved in a way that is not contemplated by the theologians but only truly understood in the centuries to come--as happened at the conclusion of the Great Western Schism?


Well the possibilities which are currently considered plausible in relation to the Great Western Schism were all debated in extenso at the time, so there's nothing really new in Franzelin's view. It's just become the common view in recent times. And some of the possibilities considered orthodox at the time have since been shown to be heterodox or erroneous.

In the present case, what we know is that the Church will indeed provide herself with a new visible head and the gates of hell will not prevail against her, and this will be to her greater glory and the astonishment of all men. We also know that the truths in the theology manuals will all remain true and the resolution of the crisis will therefore necessarily comply with those truths. In this way men will work out what to do and afterwards other men will confirm or correct what was done and show how in its essential points at least it complied with the truths of Tradition.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I think it's important to keep in mind that today's "traditional" bishops were not even appointed by an antipope.


Are you suggesting that this matters? There are something like a dozen people I've heard about who claim to be pope running around the world today. If they appoint bishops would they have true jurisdiction? I don't see it based on what has been posted here.

John Lane wrote:
An alternative is the "sanatio in radice" solution - that is, the acclamation of the Church actually elected Pope Martin V. One of the solutions is correct, and it doesn't matter which.


So... For the sake of argument, suppose that the the vast majority of the world's traditional bishops, even though they lack ordinary jurisdiction, meet in imperfect council to elect a new pope who is immediately hailed as the true pope by the vast majority of faithful traditional Catholics around the world (the SSPX, the CMRI, the SSPV, the Independents, and traditional enclaves of traditional Catholics in Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. about whom I am personally ignorant) peacefully accepted his election and acclaim him Pope... He would be the true Pope with true and valid universal jurisdiction in the eyes of God?

While such a scenario is obviously not likely in the least in the near term (or even the long term given the current circumstances), is it not theoretically possible according to what you have said here? If you say, "yes", them I am absolutely satisfied and believe I understand what you have been saying. If you say, "No", then I am completely lost and will simply have to withdraw from the conversation for I simply do not have the capacity to understand.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I think it's important to keep in mind that today's "traditional" bishops were not even appointed by an antipope.


Are you suggesting that this matters? There are something like a dozen people I've heard about who claim to be pope running around the world today. If they appoint bishops would they have true jurisdiction? I don't see it based on what has been posted here.


Yes, it matters that these men cannot even claim to have been appointed by anybody. I also don't think one can compare the claimants during the GWS to a guy living in his mother's basement who claims to be pope.

TKGS wrote:
So... For the sake of argument, suppose that the the vast majority of the world's traditional bishops, even though they lack ordinary jurisdiction ...


They lack jurisdiction period. In what I've read concerning jusridiction, as in a right and power to rule, there is never any mention of supplied jurisdiction.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
TKGS wrote:
There are something like a dozen people I've heard about who claim to be pope running around the world today. If they appoint bishops would they have true jurisdiction? I don't see it based on what has been posted here.


There's no basis in the law for these multiple antipopes to attract supplied jurisdiction. There's no common error, of course. There's hardly partial error.

Quote:
So... For the sake of argument, suppose that the the vast majority of the world's traditional bishops, even though they lack ordinary jurisdiction, meet in imperfect council to elect a new pope who is immediately hailed as the true pope by the vast majority of faithful traditional Catholics around the world (the SSPX, the CMRI, the SSPV, the Independents, and traditional enclaves of traditional Catholics in Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. about whom I am personally ignorant) peacefully accepted his election and acclaim him Pope... He would be the true Pope with true and valid universal jurisdiction in the eyes of God?


TKGS, you appear to be assuming that the only Catholics remaining are the traditionalists. If this were true then it would also be true that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been extinguished, so that's the end of the Catholic Church; the gates of hell have prevailed.

But we obviously all expect some kind of miraculous end to this crisis. Mass conversion would be a part of that, because if God intervenes in some obvious way then many will recognise that and submit to Him. In the kind of scenario I imagine, some of those conversions will be amongst the Roman Clergy and some of the retired bishops of the Catholic Church who at present are not fulfilling their duties. An election which included both would be accepted by all and would moreover satisfy all schools of theology and ensure that there was no doubt that the same Church which entered the crisis in 1958 has emerged victorious and uninterrupted from it.

Does this make it clearer?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Mr. Lane,

I can finally rest.

I believe we have, this whole time, been saying the same thing. The confusion has simply been my imprecise use of language due to the fact that my Catholic education only began a few short years ago.

Thank you.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:40 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Dear TKGS,

That's good. :) I'm glad for you that you can rest, I really am. There's nothing worse than a lack of peace.

Perhaps it will also assist if we keep in view the dogmatic truth that this crisis would not have been permitted if God did not foresee even greater goods which he would draw from it.

St. Augustine, in his City of God (Book 11, ch. 23), taking as his text "And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) says the following:

Quote:
Was it not obviously meant to be understood that there was no other cause of the world's creation than that good creatures should be made by a good God? In this creation, had no one sinned, the world would have been filled and beautified with natures good without exception; and though there is sin, all things are not therefore full of sin, for the great majority of the heavenly inhabitants preserve their nature's integrity. And the sinful will though it violated the order of its own nature, did not on that account escape the laws of God, who justly orders all things for good. For as the beauty of a picture is increased by well-managed shadows, so, to the eye that has skill to discern it, the universe is beautified even by sinners, though, considered by themselves, their deformity is a sad blemish.


Now amongst the very greatest of God's creatures is His Church, the Mystical Body of His only-begotten Son made man. Its goodness is reflective of the goodness of Christ in a preeminent manner. Just as Christ "entered into His glory" by suffering, as He explained on the road to Emmaus, so also the Church travels the same royal path. Her apparent failures followed by prodigious triumphs are a mark of her divine nature.

An essential element in the glory of the Resurrection is precisely the depth and completeness of the failure preceding it, in the case of Our Lord, death itself, and in the case of the Church, a real collapse and apparent failure. If we could see how this crisis would end, so that it didn't cause us the distress of anxiety (causing us, incidentally, to increase our trust in God), then the inevitable triumph would not have the degree of glory that it will in fact enjoy. And men wouldn't learn the manifold lessons they will infallibly learn from their apostasy, and they would be worse for the lack. For the divine Teacher is instructing us.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:
TKGS, you appear to be assuming that the only Catholics remaining are the traditionalists. If this were true then it would also be true that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been extinguished, so that's the end of the Catholic Church; the gates of hell have prevailed.


I must have missed something: who are the other remaining Catholics bar the traditionalists?

Quote:
But we obviously all expect some kind of miraculous end to this crisis. Mass conversion would be a part of that, because if God intervenes in some obvious way then many will recognise that and submit to Him. In the kind of scenario I imagine, some of those conversions will be amongst the Roman Clergy and some of the retired bishops of the Catholic Church who at present are not fulfilling their duties.


This must happen in a reasonably short time frame presumably; because if the rite of ordination of bishops has been invalid since 1969, any member of the Roman clergy (of whatever grade) must have been ordained prior to that date. Which means they're getting on a bit now. I mean, it's only relevant to speak of conversions on the part of the Roman clergy if you can establish that they are clergy in the first place.

I'm sure there's an answer to this problem, I just can't see what it is at the moment.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
James Francis wrote:
This must happen in a reasonably short time frame presumably; because if the rite of ordination of bishops has been invalid since 1969, any member of the Roman clergy (of whatever grade) must have been ordained prior to that date.


No.

There are several historical facts that militate against your scenario, although we know very little about them and their extent.

For example, Pope Pius IX had the Papal Nuncio in Berlin, Pacelli, secretly consecrate Bishop Michel-Joseph Bourguignon d’Herbigny, S.J. a bishop with powers to consecrate whomever he chose while on a trip into Russia. ("Manfred Barthel (1984) The Jesuits: History and Legend of the Society of Jesus. William Morrow.") This was during PP IX's attempt to establish a provisional hierarchy without the knowledge, still less the approval, of the Soviet government. ("Hansjakob Stehle (1981) The Eastern Politics of the Vatican, 1917-1979. Ohio University Press.")

According to an article in an Italian publication of a few years ago, with references (which I will dig out shortly and post here, John), Pope Pius XII did the same thing to an even greater extent after he became Pope, although Montini, who was his secretary of state at the time, gave the names of "...all those..." to a Jesuit renegade by the name of Tondi, who was a secret communist. Tondi, in turn, gave those names and critical information to the KGB (or its equivalent of the time) who gathered them all up practically as soon as they crossed the Iron Curtain, and either shot them or sent them to the Gulag.

Nonetheless, I believe some were "missed" by the KGB.

Then there are Bishop Davidek in the former Czechoslovakia, the Ukranian Josyf Cardinal Slipyj, and Cardinal Kung and others of China to consider.

Although I do not know much detail about these efforts, it seems to me that when we consider Bishops, we do NOT consider those consecrated in the former Iron Curtain countries. I am absolutely certain not ALL fell for VC2.

This means that the apostolic succession continues in places we would normally never even consider. Although we are reasonably certain it is almost dead here, we have no such knowledge of its status elsewhere.

More later.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Shouldn't the hierarchy be visible though? That is to say, shouldn't it be in the places one is likely to look?


Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
James Francis wrote:
Shouldn't the hierarchy be visible though? That is to say, shouldn't it be in the places one is likely to look?


Yes, but it's also true that the Church can be temporarily eclipsed.

Here's a de ecclesia explaning the catholicity of the Church: viewtopic.php?p=4585#p4585

And these texts are also relevant: viewtopic.php?p=1080

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
James Francis wrote:
Shouldn't the hierarchy be visible though? That is to say, shouldn't it be in the places one is likely to look?


I would immediately answer, "Not necessarily."

Here is a perfect example of what I have insisted is the more-or-less complete and almost universal misunderstanding of what the Church means by "visible".

How "visible", in the sense that you express it above, do you suppose the Church hierarchy was in the catacombs, or during the Elizabethan persecutions, or is now in China, or in Russia?

I have insisted for a long time, and will continue to insist, that when the Church uses the term "visible" She simply means "human", "not a ghost", "physical", as opposed to "spiritual".

She does NOT mean, "...able to be seen by anyone whenever or where ever they decide to look for it..."

I repeat: quote the Nicean Creed; we believe that God created "...all things visible and invisible..."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:
How "visible", in the sense that you express it above, do you suppose the Church hierarchy was in the catacombs, or during the Elizabethan persecutions, or is now in China, or in Russia?


I should answer in this case that the hierarchy was visible everywhere bar England, or China or Russia.

But today we are presented (seemingly, if one accepts the invalidity of episcopal ordination) with the hierarchy visible literally nowhere.

I'd be interested to know if you can point me in the direction of any theologian who understands 'visible' in the sense you describe (i.e. as the contrary of 'spiritual').

According to the (very interesting) quote from Cardinal Pie which Mr L posted, it seems a period of practical invisibility of the hierarchy is foreseen with some degree of equanimity.

The question the text raised for me from the de ecclesia was how can 'moral catholicity' be said to be preserved today, when, assuming the sede thesis is correct and all that necessarily flows from it, happening upon the correct internet site is the only way in which one can discover the real hierarchy (or at least a suggestion as to where they may be)?


Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
James Francis wrote:
Quote:
How "visible", in the sense that you express it above, do you suppose the Church hierarchy was in the catacombs, or during the Elizabethan persecutions, or is now in China, or in Russia?


I should answer in this case that the hierarchy was visible everywhere bar England, or China or Russia.


Forgive me, but I think you are begging the question.

James Francis wrote:
But today we are presented (seemingly, if one accepts the invalidity of episcopal ordination) with the hierarchy visible literally nowhere.


I'll admit that perhaps the hierarchy is visible literally nowhere where you are, at least. Even then, I am not certain about that, and I really cannot see how you are certain either.

James Francis wrote:
I'd be interested to know if you can point me in the direction of any theologian who understands 'visible' in the sense you describe (i.e. as the contrary of 'spiritual').


OK. Since nothing we dare say here can stand on its own, but must be backed up by impeccable authority, I will have to read what books I have, buy some more, read those, find what I am certain is in them, and post it here for your perusal...or you could, to refute me.

James Francis wrote:
According to the (very interesting) quote from Cardinal Pie


Which I have posted to my website for the past several years...

James Francis wrote:
which Mr L posted, it seems a period of practical invisibility of the hierarchy is foreseen with some degree of equanimity.


Agreed. Or at least Cardinal Pie was equanimous....I don't feel quite that way. He didn't yet have to live through it. We do.

James Francis wrote:
The question the text raised for me from the de ecclesia was how can 'moral catholicity' be said to be preserved today, when, assuming the sede thesis is correct


...which I do not...

James Francis wrote:
and all that necessarily flows from it, happening upon the correct internet site is the only way in which one can discover the real hierarchy (or at least a suggestion as to where they may be)?


Try Eastern Europe for starters. China might be your next stop. After that, try Russia.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Ken Gordon wrote:
Since nothing we dare say here can stand on its own, but must be backed up by impeccable authority, I will have to read what books I have, buy some more, read those, find what I am certain is in them, and post it here for your perusal...or you could, to refute me.


Ken, I don't understand why you don't understand what the policy is, and why it is necessary.

In my mental universe, evidence precedes beliefs. That is, I accept things because they are proved. I like to think anything I adopt as a certain opinion, or a matter of faith, entered my mind because I read or heard an authority on the relevant matter present evidence. In the case of natural truths, that evidence would be first principles, demonstrated facts and valid logic. In the case of Catholic doctrine, the evidence would be authoritative preaching, quotes from a catechism or approved theological work, or authoritative ecclesiastical texts.

I not only think this is how my own views and beliefs are formed, I think that this is how everybody's views and beliefs ought to be formed, and if they are not, then they are not behaving as rational creatures. In any case, they're not going to approach any question of truth, natural or supernatural, on these forums without following these fundamental principles of rational thought.

So please don't think you're being singled out, you're not. You're just resisting my requests to follow proper procedure. And I frankly don't understand why. If you believe something it must be because you were presented evidence for it which you found convincing. It must therefore be possible for you to trace back the source and pass the evidence on to others. And telling us you're busy won't wash. If you can find the time to post your opinions and beliefs, then you can use the same time to find the evidence. What I am saying, in case it isn't clear, is please reorganise your limited time so that if you can't post multiple opinions or beliefs plus evidence, then stick to one opinion or belief and its evidence, then when you have more time move on to the next opinion or belief.

And finally, please don't accuse me of thinking myself infallible. The whole point of proper procedure is that if I am mistaken, or anybody else is, we can discover that we are mistaken and change our view. So you'd be performing a service to me if you did produce evidence which proved me wrong on something, and I'd be genuinely grateful. Likewise you should see the application of a little rigour to these things as in your interests too.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Unity of trads and restoring the hierarchy
Quote:
OK. Since nothing we dare say here can stand on its own, but must be backed up by impeccable authority, I will have to read what books I have, buy some more, read those, find what I am certain is in them, and post it here for your perusal...or you could, to refute me.


No, I can't. I didn't mean to imply that I can. I just wondered if the idea you've suggested is yours or whether it can be found elsewhere. I do realise these things are very difficult and everyone is doing the best they can.

Quote:
James Francis wrote:
But today we are presented (seemingly, if one accepts the invalidity of episcopal ordination) with the hierarchy visible literally nowhere.


I'll admit that perhaps the hierarchy is visible literally nowhere where you are, at least. Even then, I am not certain about that, and I really cannot see how you are certain either.



I'm not. I don't claim to be. I'm just trying to work out the practical implications of things. For example, my local NO ordinary was 'ordained' to the episcopate in 2003; and he's very probably a heretic. There is a retired archbishop, Frank Carroll, living in town too. He was ordained to the episcopate in 1968. But is a notorious liberal. So if the sedevacantist solution for the restoration comes down to hoping that the Frank Carrolls of this world convert: well, with God everything is possible. But I would at least like to be clear in my mind that this is in fact what is hoped for.

Quote:
James Francis wrote:
Quote:
How "visible", in the sense that you express it above, do you suppose the Church hierarchy was in the catacombs, or during the Elizabethan persecutions, or is now in China, or in Russia?


I should answer in this case that the hierarchy was visible everywhere bar England, or China or Russia.


Forgive me, but I think you are begging the question.


Which question?


Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:29 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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.