It is currently Sun May 28, 2017 12:20 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 On "Schism" and "Universal Acceptance" 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Well you are both incorrect. I highly recommend that you read what is posted at the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm . It all revolves around Bishops in Diocese with Ordinary Jurisdiction and a Pope with Ordinary Universal Jurisdiction. If you are going to attempt to belittle people with your snide remarks you might want to read up on the subject. By the way a handful of people visibilty and indefectibility do not make. Don't take my word for it look it up or ask John he knows you are incorrect. If you read the above link you will find your definition isn't even close.

Here's the problem:

1. They aren't bishops, due to the invalid 1969 rite of ordination.
2. They aren't even Catholics, but manifest, obstinate, modernist heretics, every man jack of them. And to be a bishop, you must not just be validly ordained, but you must also be a Catholic. Period.

The "bishops" you talk about are just the same as Anglican or Lutheran bishops, and must be treated as such. They don't have any more jurisdiction over the Catholic Church or any Catholic diocese than you or I do.

Yes, a valid apostolic succession and Roman clergy does exist. It must. But you won't find them in the Vatican, or on gcatholic.org.


Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Brendan wrote:
1. They aren't bishops, due to the invalid 1969 rite of ordination.
...or on gcatholic.org.


Tell me how you are so sure that the forty one men on this page are neither Catholics nor true bishops?

http://www.gcatholic.org/hierarchy/data/rite-GM.htm

And that's just the Melkites. We can move onto scores more Eastern Rite bishops once you've answered this question. e.g. Fifty eight Maronites here: http://www.gcatholic.org/hierarchy/data/rite-M.htm To see a bewilderingly large number of others, click on Jurisdictions, Dioceses, By Rite.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Just as an aside to this this. It is my understanding that Ordinary Jurisdiction is territorial and Dioceses cannot overlap. So do you think that Eastern Rite Bishops have full or delegated Jurisdiction that is like a Bishop of a Prelature or an Abbot. In other words they only have Jurisdiction over their subjects but the main Diocesan Bishop has absolute Ordinary Jurisdiction? I have never thought about this before and am still looking in to it.


Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St. Justin, most Eastern Rite bishops have territorial jurisdiction. They're in places like Egypt, Lebanon, Ukraine. The few in the USA etc. who have personal jurisdiction (the set-up was a novelty under Pius X, if memory serves) are exceptions, but their jurisdiction is ordinary, I believe.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
It's a mess in the East, but less so than in the West. The fact is that the Conciliar Church is not a condemned sect, and neither is it possible to identify a heresy that everyone caught up in it maintains. So they're not all non-Catholics, and we should be glad about that.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: On "Schism"
tradical stated:
Quote:
Michael,

Please have John verify that he agrees with the explanation of 'rule of faith' as noted above (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22078070)

Furthermore, regarding this:

QUOTE

In order to escape the problem you are confronting (i.e. as Bellarmine put it, how can we avoid our head?), you and tradical insist that the ordinary universal magisterium (i.e. the bishops all teaching, in unison with the pope) guarantees infallibly that a given pope is pope. This is true of past popes, but cannot, by definition, be true of the current pope, because then the argument would be perfectly circular. A claimant to the papacy would be infallibly guaranteeing his own legitimacy. Obviously that is a bad argument. Note carefully how Billot is not making such an argument. He is arguing based upon the indefectibility of the Church, not the infallibility of the magisterium.


This is not a correct interpretation of the teaching of the dogmatic fact. The Pope doesn't 'validate' his election. Hunter, Ott et al are clear that the Bishops recognize the man that was elected as Pope and is reigning.

Furthermore, Hunter goes on to demonstrate that, as does Cardinal Billot, the infallibility of the dogmatic fact is due to the indefectibility of the Church.

So they are both arguing from the same basis.

QUOTE

affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the CathoHc Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the
simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time.

A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.


This is an argument based on the indefectibility of the Church. Oddly, the underlined portion bears a striking resemblance to some of the arguments put forward by Sedevacantists.


With regards to:

QUOTE

As John Daly has pointed out, it's hard for you to run this argument against us, since you deny the foundation of the argument! You essentially deny the revealed truth that the pope is the living rule of faith that the Church ought to, and does, always follow in matters of belief. To the contrary, you maintain that the Church truly acknowledges a pope that it learns nothing from, and does not obey.


So:

1. The foundations of the argument (indefectibility) are the same.
2. The Pope is a living rule of faith, however John appears to have a faulty understanding of what this entails. (see above).
3. The underlined portion is a non-sequitor. His assertion that the Church learns nothing from and does not obey the Pope needs clarification and development due to the above two points. For example: The teaching that the Catholic Church cannot ordain priestesses is a demonstration of a 'rule of faith' that the Church adheres to.

I'm afraid that for all the arguments that the two Johns have put forward they have yet to demonstrate that the Pope(s) are notorious heretics.

The problem really comes down to understanding how a man can be Pope and do the things that have been done since the Second Vatican Council.


God Bless!




_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
1. The suggestion that JS Daly's translation might be suspect is disgusting. As if anybody is going to risk a dodgy translation in pursuit of an advantage in controversy. Well, maybe in lower high school. So that is the level we are dealing with. Somebody who doesn't know the language of the Church slyly suggests that somebody who does know the language of the Church might be deceiving him. Is any comment really necessary?

2. Tradical has managed to reduce "loving the pope" to agreeing with him twice every single century, an heroically generous disposition apparently characteristic of all Catholics prior to Vatican II. He defined the Assumption, and he condemned the notion of wimin priestesses. Other than that, the pope was irrelevant to Catholics. Got it. Now, let me look that up in the catechism and see why I missed it the first time...

3. Tradical abandons the position of Nishant on the foundation of the doctrine that univeral acceptance is proof of legitimacy. Good. It's the indefectibility of the Church.

4. "[T]he arguments that the two Johns have put forward they have yet to demonstrate that the Pope(s) are notorious heretics." What is this comment doing in this thread??? We're not proving that these men have been heretics - we're merely refuting the amazing claim that they have been peacefully accepted by the whole Church, when they have not even been peacefully accepted by the chumps who are putting forward this argument!

5. "The problem really comes down to understanding how a man can be Pope and do the things that have been done since the Second Vatican Council." Close. Actually, it comes down to understanding how Church, with a Pope, can do the things that have been done since the Second Vatican Council. E.g. Practice a whole new religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre said many times. The Archbishop said that we are obliged to treat the Novus Ordo Missae as false worship, and avoid it under pain of mortal sin. Explain how the Church can make such worship her norm, and you'll have some hope of convincing us.

Just in case you don't know what the differences are between the Church with a pope, and the Church when the See is vacant, here's a brief instruction:

Cardinal Franzelin, translated by James Larrabee.

VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

15. "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)

Explaining this crisis with an occupied See of Rome? Impossible. Explaining it with a vacant See of Rome? "Thou shalt not break a bone of Him."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: On "Schism"
Nishant stated:
Quote:
Well, this is all rather amusing. I did actually answer John Lane's argument above, when I gave the simple syllogism Fr. Hunter, S.J. used in arriving at the conclusion. I disagree that Cardinal Billot, Msgr. Van Noort or Rev. Connell are in opposition to each other at all, they merely approach the problem in different ways before converging to the same conclusion, that the proposition "this man accepted by the whole Church here and now" is a dogmatic fact that is infallibly true.

1. It is really a trivial point whether the reason for this is the "indefectibility of the Church", (John Lane) "the authority of the infallible Church" believed by the faithful "by ecclesiastical faith" (Rev. Connell), "the ordinary and universal Magisterium" accepted in turn by "the bishops and the universal Church (Van Noort) or the "adhesion of the universal Church (Cardinal Billot) or whether it be an illustration of the passive infallibility that the whole Church teaching, i.e. the universal episcopate for the purposes of this argument, possesses in adhering to the Pope as Pope, professing communion with and subjection to him. So this is in no way circular, since we are not saying of course that the Pope confirms himself. Please note also, I am saying the testimony of the whole hierarchy suffices as a practical rule, because such unanimity is already binding on the faithful demanding an assent of ecclesiastical faith, but in fact, the faithful will in their turn infallibly adhere with the same moral unanimity to the bishops in accepting the Pope as the Pope.

So I disagree this issue is fundamental. The fundamental questions should be, in my opinion, "Does the recognition of the hierarchy suffice to know for certain that the Pope is the Pope" as Fr. Hunter among others says it does? And "In what precisely does this recognition consist of, how is it externally manifested and what does it entail?"

2. John Lane says, "it's hard for you to run this argument against us, since you deny the foundation of the argument! You essentially deny the revealed truth that the pope is the living rule of faith"

Not at all. I believe it absolutely, as does Bishop Fellay and the Society, otherwise we would not be open to discussions with the Roman authorities. As explained before(see here) the Society holds the position, as did some pre-Vatican II theologians, that the magisterium of the pope that is merely authentic can in some abnormal circumstances contain error or ambiguity in which case the duty of assent ceases and asking for correction or clarification is every Catholic's right. So if on this account you claim we don't accept the Pope as the proximate rule of faith, then neither did those mentioned in the article, including Dom Nau and others, which is absurd. And really, neither would you in that case, perhaps, if you accept Pope John XXIII, since among other things I will pass over in silence, he taught religious liberty in Pacem et Terris.

So again, if you would oblige us, John, by answering whether the acceptance of the hierarchy suffices, and how in particular acceptance is externally manifested, and how we saw these things were verified in the case of Pope John XXIII, in your view, we can make some progress. That is the real issue, and I believe even with your own somewhat unrealistic standards, the fact of universal acceptance is still demonstrable.

In particular, I believe the Conciliar hierarchy and others in teaching positions in the mainstream Church today professes something called an oath of fidelity issued by JP II in 1989 and modified slightly later, some specifics are vague in my mind, (see [1] and [2] ) which involves precisely the so called "religious submission of will and intellect" or obsequium religiosum you also speak of and seem to deem of fundamental importance. Is this not a sufficient external manifestation of the acceptance of the Pope as the rule of faith by the Church?

So the question remains, even with your standards, high and unrealistic in my opinion, is not the fact "that the bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope" still verified and externally manifested in the concrete today?

Therefore, the conclusion necessarily follows and in fact is true that the faithful accept are bound to accept the same by ecclesiastical faith.

Anyway, here are a couple more sources saying the pacific and universal acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is an external sign and infallible effect of a valid election, immediately recognizable as such, and from that moment forth, precluding any posssibility of legitimate doubt on the same.

QUOTE (Dom Guéranger @ The Liturgical Year, Vol. 12.)
But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.”


QUOTE (Cardinal Journet @ Church of the Word Incarnate, 1954)
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).



_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:20 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Nishant wrote:
So this is in no way circular, since we are not saying of course that the Pope confirms himself.


Yes, you are indeed saying that "the pope confirms himself", the moment you introduce infallibility into the matter. There's no possible dispute about this point. If you don't know that the pope is the lynchpin of infallibility, so that the Church could not possibly be infallible without his sanction, then you need to begin with "Who made you?" and go from there.

You explicitly stated that infallibility was the issue. If you have now realised that you didn't read the texts with any real care, and instead leaped to conclusions, then withdraw your comments and admit that you have learned something. Then we might be on the path to some kind of reasonable conclusion.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Nishant wrote:
2. John Lane says, "it's hard for you to run this argument against us, since you deny the foundation of the argument! You essentially deny the revealed truth that the pope is the living rule of faith"

Not at all. I believe it absolutely, as does Bishop Fellay and the Society, otherwise we would not be open to discussions with the Roman authorities.


I rest my case.

Just in case anybody is unsure as to why Nishant just lost the debate, a Catholic (especially a cleric, and most especially a bishop!) does not "negotiate" doctrinal (or even merely disciplinary) questions with the Roman Pontiff. He submits.

I hasten to add, Bishop Fellay is just like Archbishop Lefebvre, who described himself as a "practical sedevacantist" and openly questioned the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes. I don't see Nishant doing that, but I don't see many true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Internet (neither amongst the so-called "Resistance" in case my words are taken wrong).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Nishant wrote:
So the question remains, even with your standards, high and unrealistic in my opinion, is not the fact "that the bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope" still verified and externally manifested in the concrete today?


There's nothing "high" about what you describe as my standards. They are the factual, boring, standards of the theologians. Submitting to the pope does not consist in a willingness to enter into negotiations with him.

Nor is it consistent with practicing a different religion from that which "the pope" presides over and fosters with his every act. You may not have noticed that this problem exists, but I assure you that Archbishop Lefebvre did notice it, and at bottom it explains why there has been no "deal" between the SSPX and the Modernists, and it is fundamental to the views of true traditional Catholics. You should join us.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
tradical wrote:
Please do not assume that I am being malicious in my argumentation.


I'm not, and I don't understand why you think that I am making any such assumption. I'll tell you what I think. I think you're a beginner of above-average intelligence who is confronting some of the most mysterious and difficult issues honestly but with insufficient learning, caution or diffidence.

tradical wrote:
What you are putting forward is that the Pope(s) have not been 'peacefully accepted' by the whole Church and therefore that they are not Pope(s).


I have repeatedly denied that this is my argument. St. Justin keeps asserting that it's my argument as well, and despite my telling him very clearly many times that it isn't, he persists in his misapprehension.

Again (!), the argument here is being put by YOU, and it is that the Conciliar popes have been peacefully accepted by the whole Church and therefore they must truly be popes. All that I am doing on this score is REFUTING your argument. This refutation does not, cannot, prove that any claimant has not been pope. I don't even understand what you think the argument would be on that line, but whatever confusion you are in, please understand this much: We are not attempting to prove that JP2 or Benedict or any of the others were not popes by referring to a lack of peaceful acceptance.

Many true popes lacked, at least for a time, peaceful acceptance by large portions of the Church. The lack of peaceful acceptance doesn't prove anything. We're not seeking to rely upon it to prove that the See is presently vacant. I've now said that about seven times.

tradical wrote:
What I am pointing out is that your argument is flawed in numerous ways


Mate, you haven't even grasped what the argument is yet, but when you do so, you may well indeed demonstrate that we are mistaken. I look forward to that moment.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Tradical,

You can't have the argument about the Rule of Faith both ways. If the Rule of Faith is so rarely present, as you allege, then it will not serve as proof that most popes were truly popes (e.g. Pius XI, John XXIII, and Benedict XVI didn't solemnly define anything, so the proof from universal acceptance won't apply to any of them). Make up your mind whether you seek to rely upon such a rarely applicable rule. While you're making up your mind, recall that you can't just highlight the one or two occasions when the faithful accepted something from Paul VI or JP2. You need to take account of those other occasions, such as the solemn canonisation of Josemaria Escrivá, openly rejected by traditional Catholics, or the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, openly rejected by pretty much everybody except for traditional Catholics. Some "Rule of Faith" these Conciliar popes have been!

Just to clear some ground, I agree that Paul VI didn't change the law of the Church as codified in Quo Primum Tempore when he published his new synthetic missal.

You appear to think that if you can show that the Church has not technically "crossed the line" by officially imposing error or the evil Novus Ordo liturgy, then the problem is solved. This is a mistake, a grave mistake.

In passing I should highlight that Archbishop Lefebvre regarded the Novus Ordo Missae as false worship which it is objectively sinful to assist at. Further, the Society of St. Pius X recognises that there exists a deeply mysterious "problem of authority" in the Church, due (in their view) to the conjunction of error and the official Teaching Body of the Church, and to the conjunction of a complete programme of destruction of souls with the official Government of the Church; in sum, the very strange picture, according to their theory, of the true Church practicing almost exclusively a false religion. I mention these points because I suspect that you don't recognise these things, and in not recognising them, you fail to see the intellectual problems that they pose.

In any case despite the fact that in my view Paul VI (on the hypothesis that he was truly pope) did not change the law regarding the missal, he did proceed to impose the Novus Ordo Missae tyrannically (i.e. without proper lawful procedure) on the entire Church. Those who didn't adopt it held their ground against the clear and determined will of Paul VI. So even though the law itself still stood from St. Pius V's time, guaranteeing to all priests the right to use only the Tridentine missal, this right was trampled upon by Paul VI and the entire Latin hierarchy, with the sole exception of Bishop de Castro Mayer. The result was a Church which with moral universality practices a new religion, offering false worship to God, and prays publicly according to a rite which destroys the faith of those who assist at it.

Now, no matter how you seek to narrow down the concepts of indefectibility and infallibility, as you do, you cannot make this picture fit into the framework of doctrinal truths about the Catholic Church which are found in the old theology manuals. You quote the Catholic Encyclopedia referring to the reality that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then you empty it of all possible meaning by saying that she hardly ever teaches the faithful.

Read Cardinal Manning's book, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. It's a doctrine that you sorely need to get under your belt.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:46 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
The visibility of the Church rests in the faithful Catholics throughout the world.


"Faithful Catholics" has nothing to do with either The visibility of the Church or its indefectibility. You post quoted above is what I find objectionable with what you stated.


St. Justin,

The Church is, first and foremost, a visible unity of those who outwardly profess the Catholic faith. In this very discussion we have seen this referred to by the great theologian Franzelin: "It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith."

So, if what is meant by adding "faithful" to the term "Catholics" is that open heretics and apostates are excluded from the Church, then it is absolutely relevant and correct.

Indeed, the entire debate about ecclesiology essentially stems, in my view, from one question, viz. whether or not one starts from this foundation of the visible unity of the Church in the profession of faith. Those who downplay this truth look only at whether each individual would be considered canonically a Catholic, and this is both true and important, yet it is not all. Those who, like Archbishop Lefebvre, emphasise the existence and nature of "the Conciliar church", have a larger and more fundamental truth in view, and it is they who see the forest and not just the trees.

As somebody wise once said, if your ideas about the Church aren't Catholic, then your ideas about the pope won't be either. If your "church" doesn't defend and preach the faith, then you won't expect your pope to do so, or indeed any individual, layman, priest, or bishop. All they need to be considered Catholics, in your eyes, will be an entry somewhere in a baptismal registry.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
John,
The problem is that "the visible unity of the Church" is not what the Church means by "visibility of the Church" and you know it. Nor does "the visible unity of the Church" have anything to do with the Marks of the Church or indefectibility. "the visible unity of the Church" is the effect of the Marks and visibility and indefectibility and not the other way around as I understand you to be saying/

John Lane wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
The visibility of the Church rests in the faithful Catholics throughout the world.


"Faithful Catholics" has nothing to do with either The visibility of the Church or its indefectibility. You post quoted above is what I find objectionable with what you stated.


St. Justin,

Indeed, the entire debate about ecclesiology essentially stems, in my view, from one question, viz. whether or not one starts from this foundation of the visible unity of the Church in the profession of faith. Those who downplay this truth look only at whether each individual would be considered canonically a Catholic, and this is both true and important, yet it is not all. Those who, like Archbishop Lefebvre, emphasise the existence and nature of "the Conciliar church", have a larger and more fundamental truth in view, and it is they who see the forest and not just the trees.

As somebody wise once said, if your ideas about the Church aren't Catholic, then your ideas about the pope won't be either. If your "church" doesn't defend and preach the faith, then you won't expect your pope to do so, or indeed any individual, layman, priest, or bishop. All they need to be considered Catholics, in your eyes, will be an entry somewhere in a baptismal registry.


Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:42 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
John,
The problem is that "the visible unity of the Church" is not what the Church means by "visibility of the Church" and you know it.


SJ, not only do I not know what you allege, I absolutely reject it.

The Marks of the Church are unique to her. No other body has them. That's why they are Marks, not just Notes.

The Church is visible as the Church, not merely visible as any social body. What this means is, among other things, that the Church is one in the profession of the same faith by all of her members. This is one aspect of how the mark of unity actually acts as a mark, and it certainly couldn't act as a mark if it didn't have specific, objective, content such as this.

The Notes of the Church are shared by some other bodies. For example, persecution. The Russian Orthodox church has been persecuted, quite severely, by several rulers (Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, particularly). But the Russian Orthodox church does not have the unity of faith that the Catholic Church has and must necessarily always have. The Russians believe all manner of varying things without sanction by their church. And it's the unity of the Catholic Church that is a Mark, not merely a Note. She alone claims and actually exercises the full doctrinal authority which produces true unity of profession of faith.

On the hypothesis that Bergoglio is the pope you have a supposed Catholic Church which enjoys no unity of faith, either in teaching or in believing. And the whole world has noticed this, even if you and some others blind yourselves to it. What I mean is that everybody recognises that "Catholics" no longer agree with their Church, and furthermore, that their Church no longer attempts to enforce her doctrines.

St.Justin wrote:
"the visible unity of the Church" is the effect of the Marks and visibility and indefectibility and not the other way around as I understand you to be saying


This doesn’t appear to be an English sentence, but if I were to guess what you are trying to express, I would think you are saying something totally unorthodox. The visible unity of the Church is an effect of her doctrinal authority. She preaches the revealed truth and commands that her members accept it, and then inflicts sanctions on those who fail to do so, with the quasi-miraculous result of perfect unity of professed belief amongst all of the members of the Church.

For a good summary, read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
One = The Church founded by Christ is unique and one. The vatican council teaches:
In order that the whole host of the faithful may remain in unity of faith and
communion He placed St. Peter over the other Apostles an instituted in him both
a perpetual princile of unity and a visible foundation.
The Church is One because its members;
1.Are all united under one government
2.All profess the same faith
3.All join in a common worshipAs already noted (XI) Christ Himself declared that the
unity of his followers should bear witness to Him. Discord and separation are the
Devil's work on the earth. The unity and brotherhood promised by Christ are to be the
visible manifestation on the earth of the Divine union (John 17:21). St. Paul's teaching
on this point is to the same effect. He sees in the visible unity of the body of Christ an
external sign of the oneness of the Spirit who dwells within it. There is, he says,
"one body and one Spirit" (Ephesians 4:4). As in any living organism the union of the
members in one body is the sign of the one animating principle within, so it is with the
Church. If the Church were divided into two or more mutually exclusive bodies, how
could she witness to the presence of that Spirit Whose name is Love. Further, when it is
said that the members of the Church are united by the profession of the same faith, we
speak of external profession as well as inward acceptance. In recent years, much has
been said by those outside the Church, about unity of spirit being compatible with
differences of creed. Such words are meaningless in reference to a Divine revelation.
Christ came from heaven to reveal the truth to man. If a diversity of creeds could be
found in His Church, this could only be because the truth He revealed had been lost in
the quagmire of human error. It would signify that His work was frustrated, that His
Church was no longer the pillar and ground of the truth. There is, it is plain, but one
Church, in which is found the unity we have described — in the Catholic Church, united
under the government of the supreme pontiff, and acknowledging all that he teaches in
his capacity as the infallible guide of the Church.

Indefectibility = The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the
Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world.

Visibility = The Church founded by Christ is an external visible commonwealth.
The bible proof of the visibility of the Church springs from the Divine institution
of the hierarchy.

In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will
at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable
among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed
respectively "material" and "formal" visibility by Catholic theologians. The material
visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private
profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by
some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true
Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine
society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it
possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who
see it must know it comes from God.


Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:31 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Yes, so your opinion is that the Church need have nothing more than material visibility, whereas the Church teaches that she always has both material and formal visibility.

Quote:
The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:49 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
My opinion is she must possess both as the Church says. If you note everything I posted says that the Marks (notes) all depend on the hierarchy as both their source and sustenance.
Quote:
That quality of the Church by which she appears externally and can be recognized by the senses. Two kinds of visibility are distinguished. The Church is materially visible in that her members are human beings who can be identified as Catholic Christians. The Church is also formally visible in possessing certain sensibly perceptible properites, notably the required profession of a common faith, the practice of a definite ritual, and obedience to identifiable laws under an authorized hierarchy.
Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

John Lane wrote:
Yes, so your opinion is that the Church need have nothing more than material visibility, whereas the Church teaches that she always has both material and formal visibility.

Quote:
The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.


Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
The Church is also formally visible in possessing certain sensibly perceptible properties, notably the required profession of a common faith, the practice of a definite ritual, and obedience to identifiable laws under an authorized hierarchy.
Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

I submit that the Novus Ordo "Catholic" "Concilliar" (as one of its own "Cardinals" named it) Church fulfills not one of these criteria. Please prove otherwise, if you can. I suggest that you take each of the above criteria, one at a time, and show how the Novus Ordo fulfills that one before you go on to the next.

This "Novus Ordo Concilliar Church" is an abomination. It is completely corrosive to true Catholic faith. It calls itself "Catholic" when its "hierarchy" chooses to do so, but acts contrary to anything and everything truly Catholic otherwise. It holds the external trappings of the True Catholic Church illegally and unjustly, but contains only shadows of the substance of the True Church. It is the bride of Satan, not of Christ. It is known, at least to us, by its fruits, which have all been completely rotten.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
My opinion is she must possess both as the Church says. If you note everything I posted says that the Marks (notes) all depend on the hierarchy as both their source and sustenance.

SJ, this is what you posted first:
St.Justin wrote:
Nor does "the visible unity of the Church" have anything to do with the Marks of the Church or indefectibility.


I hope you've changed your mind now that you've looked up a source (Hardon). But you should admit as much, and not just move on to what is really a new point.

As for the hierarchy and the marks, yes the marks depend upon the hierarchy, in a certain sense, but this must be understood correctly. We are looking at an organic whole, of which every part and feature is absolutely necessary for its true existence. Without a hierarchy it is not the Church; without an actual unity of faith (and worship) it isn't the true Church; without a true submission of the faithful to the hierarchy it isn't the Church either. There's more, but these points will do for present purposes.

Now, look at unity of faith and the hierarchy. The pope is the principle of unity in the Church, causing her to have unity of communion (or "social charity") by his divinely assisted government and causing her to have a perfect unity in the profession of the true faith by his preaching and his doctrinal laws. But these effects remain even when the See is vacant, insofar as the Church remains the Church and anybody who refuses communion with her members ceases to be a member himself, thus preserving her unity. The same is true of those who refuse to profess the true faith. They depart, by their own act, leaving behind a perfect unity just as before.

So yes, the pope causes the unity of the Church, but this has to be understood correctly or grave errors will arise, such as the entirely heterodox notion that the Church disappears each time the pope dies and leaves the See vacant, or that the Church ceases to have her fundamental unity of faith and charity during each vacancy of the Holy See, or even, as Michael Davies famously and incredibly stated in writing, that the visible unity of the Church is preserved during the vacancy only because there is a Cardinal Camerlengo in charge! (!!!)

So there are at least two main theories of the present crisis, one of which is obscure and unattractive, and the other which is blatantly absurd and wrong.

Taking the second first. The Catholic Church consists of all of those men who give verbal acknowledgement to the open heretic Francis, despite the following notorious facts:

a) Almost nobody takes the preaching, such as it is, of Francis or his henchmen seriously, conforming their interior and exterior religious views to his, thus treating him as their proximate rule of faith,
b) those who profess the true faith will not worship according to the main rite of worship preferred, fostered, and promoted by Francis and his henchmen,
c) those who worship according to the New Rites, rejected absolutely by traditional Catholics, profess all manner of doctrines without sanction by Francis and his henchmen.

So, no unity of communion, no unity of worship, no unity of faith. Just an absurd pretence of communion and submission to a cardboard cut-out "pope."

The first theory, on the other hand, obscure and unattractive to natural man, is simply that the See of Rome is vacant, therefore the Church is unable at present to teach infallibly but she is able to preserve her indefectibility in faith, as she always preserves it, along with indefectibility in every other respect. The Church consists of all of those who profess the true faith, are subject to the hierarchy (meaning, of course, truly subject, which means obeying the laws of the Church, as traditional Catholics do and Conciliarists as a rule do not), and have not left her unity by schism.

And if you say, well the Church is invisible according to this theory, I say no she is not, she is mainfest. Converts keep finding her, and the criminals in the Vatican keep noticing her and trying to bring her into communion with their crimes, in order to dissolve her as their own New Church is intrinsically dissolved and disunited. No, we traditional Catholics are not invisible, we are perfectly clearly true Catholics, much to the joy of the converts that we continue to welcome, and much to the chagrin of many others on the outside.

It is the theory by which those who are not subject to the hierarchy that they claim to accept, do not profess a common faith with those they insist are their fellow members in Christ, and do not worship according to the same rites, which makes the Church invisible in the only sense which matters - that is, she must be visible as the Church. Indeed, your theory preserves a kind of visibility, but only at the expense of literally everything else.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
My opinion is she must possess both as the Church says. If you note everything I posted says that the Marks (notes) all depend on the hierarchy as both their source and sustenance.

SJ, this is what you posted first:
St.Justin wrote:
Nor does "the visible unity of the Church" have anything to do with the Marks of the Church or indefectibility.


John,
My response above was in respnse to two posters who stated or at least implied that a small group of people huddled in a little room all possessing the Catholic Faith is what makes the Church visible which you seem to be defending. That is a far cry from what the Church means by its visibilty.

Second point is that the name of this forum section is "discussion" when in fact it should have been called "attack". I for one don't take kindly to being talked down to and belittled while trying to have a civil discussion by you are anyone else. I have well over 30 years of study of the problems of the Church and I am not dumb by any means. I have friends in the NO, SSPX and sede groups and none of them behave in the manner of you or your posters. I quit posting on this tread not because I felt I was correct or you were correct. It just seemed pointless to subject my self to personal attacks constantly.


Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: On "Schism"
St Justin,

Let’s be honest here. I was a regular reader of Ignis Ardens before it was disabled and you were one of the most prolific posters and were attacked, belittled and talked down to on a daily basis and, at times, to a horrifying extent. Your response to such treatment was to be one of the top 10 posters daily and return like for like on occasion. So I simply do not buy your reason for quitting this thread.

Secondly, apart from being called “ignorant” once here, which is a perfectly valid comment when the assertions you put forward ignore the relevant Church teachings, the only thing that has been “attacked” is the position you hold which you have failed to defend. And let us also remember that the whole Schism thread instigated by Tradical on IA was an attack on anyone who doesn’t “recognise” the pope according to his/your erroneous interpretation of Church teaching. You are the attackers. And you are quitting this thread because you are unable to defend your position.


Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:
Quote:
It just seemed pointless to subject my self to personal attacks constantly.


I have been reading this discussion and haven't noticed any constant personal attacks. If you think this forum is rough take a look around at some of the others. The posters on here are gentlemanly and stick to the issues. You may not like what some on here say, but you are always free to challenge anyone on here using approved sources.

By the way, the issue of visibility in our time should be thought of in terms of what the minimum visibility can be to maintain the visible Catholic Church on earth. At one point in time, the entire hierarchy was hidden in a room, yet the Church was visible.

I was hoping that the discussion would move in that direction, as John was giving you excellent answers to your points. It seems to me that the Church maintains visibility so long as there are known members of the hierarchy who can be found, and at the same time laity who publicly profess the Faith. The Church is always made up of the Shepherds and the sheep.

Regarding the hierarchy, anyone on this forum with reasonable means could locate them.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:52 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
I assume you don't think that AMWills post was a personal attack? If so it is no wonder you don't think there have been any personal attacks.

Anyway there has to be a visible hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction. If you accept the theory that the NO Sacraments are invalid and no valid Popes to grant Ordinary Jurisdiction then the field of available Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction is narrowed somewhat to say the least. The Eastern rites bing a possible exception but only if you think an invalid Pope can give Jurisdiction. As I said before I was not arguing what makes the Church "Visiblle". I know what "Visibility is. I was trying to convey that a group of people who hold the Catholic Faith with none of the other criteria being met is not the "Visible" Church. I understood Ken and the other guy to be saying that a group of people who hold the Catholic Faith with none of the other criteria being met is the "Visible" Church and that is totally incorrect. While it may be true that they hold the Catholic Faith they are not the "Visible" Catholic Church.

Quote:
By the way, the issue of visibility in our time should be thought of in terms of what the minimum visibility can be to maintain the visible Catholic Church on earth. At one point in time, the entire hierarchy was hidden in a room, yet the Church was visible.


In one sense that may be true in another it is not. "Visiblity" means it must be discernable to the senses( I use that term to make a point only). That is where the terms formal and material come in and again both are necessary..

Quote:
I was hoping that the discussion would move in that direction, as John was giving you excellent answers to your points. It seems to me that the Church maintains visible so long as there are known members of the hierarchy who can be found, and at the same time laity who publicly profess the Faith. The Church is always made up of the Shepherds and the sheep.

Regarding the hierarchy, anyone on this forum with reasonable means could locate them.


John almost always gives excellent answers but in this case he was not addressing the issue I was raising.
Name me a member of the hierarchy?


Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:39 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:
Quote:
I assume you don't think that AMWills post was a personal attack? If so it is no wonder you don't think there have been any personal attacks.


I was never a regular reader at IA, so I do not know the facts. AMWills says he was a regular there and has related his experience. If you believe he is wrong then challenge him. Until the facts are clear, I cannot tell you if it was a personal attack.

Quote:
Anyway there has to be a visible hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction. If you accept the theory that the NO Sacraments are invalid and no valid Popes to grant Ordinary Jurisdiction then the field of available Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction is narrowed somewhat to say the least. The Eastern rites bing a possible exception but only if you think an invalid Pope can give Jurisdiction. As I said before I was not arguing what makes the Church "Visiblle". I know what "Visibility is. I was trying to convey that a group of people who hold the Catholic Faith with none of the other criteria being met is not the "Visible" Church. I understood Ken and the other guy to be saying that a group of people who hold the Catholic Faith with none of the other criteria being met is the "Visible" Church and that is totally incorrect. While it may be true that they hold the Catholic Faith they are not the "Visible" Catholic Church.


The visible Church must be the hierarchy and the laity. Perhaps Ken and TKGS can clarify their position, but I can tell you that I have a firm belief that they do not hold an unorthodox position. I have read their posts for years and I have a certain view about both of them regarding their orthodoxy.

The Church can be more visible or less visible, but it will always be visible. It will always be made up of successors of the apostles and the laity. It will never be a secret group. The bishops can always be found, but it may take an increased amount of diligence. We know with certainty that the faith will always be found in Rome, but it is possible for it to fail in any other diocese throughout the world. We also know with certainty that the hierarchy cannot completely fall away. The same can be said for the clergy of Rome.

Quote:
In one sense that may be true in another it is not. "Visiblity" means it must be discernable to the senses( I use that term to make a point only). That is where the terms formal and material come in and again both are necessary..


It is discernible to the senses, but it is less so. It is impossible to see the Church throughout the world, in all places except for a miracle. Most Catholics in the history of the Church never saw the Pope, yet he was visible. Many very rarely saw their bishop, or other diocesan bishops, yet they knew they were there.

Is it necessary for all individual Catholics to see the hierarchy for them to be visible? The hierarchy must be objectively visible, but it may go unseen daily by most Catholics who know by Faith that it exists. How many Catholics in 1900 saw a member of the hierarchy on a daily, monthly or even annual basis, yet never doubted that they were there?

Quote:
Name me a member of the hierarchy?

It is a matter of Faith that they exist. We know how to identify them, and we can locate them. At present, it might be that the names of the hierarchy are mixed in with the names of heretics, so the task will be to correctly identify those who have kept the Faith from those who have defected. When God is ready, we can hope that He will give us the graces to unravel this mystery, but for whatever reason He has not yet done this.

In the meantime, we have the knowledge of who the hierarchy is made up of, but we cannot without diligence point out an individual member with certainty. If it is important for you to know and find an individual member of the hierarchy, you can start by researching and attempting to contact the remaining Pius XII bishops. That would be a good start.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Sep 07, 2013 5:05 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Quote:
In the meantime, we have the knowledge of who the hierarchy is made up of, but we cannot without diligence point out an individual member with certainty. If it is important for you to know and find an individual member of the hierarchy, you can start by researching and attempting to contact the remaining Pius XII bishops. That would be a good start.


That is just one of the problems. There are no Pius XII Bishops left with Ordinary Jurisdiction. John pointed out that at least some of the Eastern Rite Bishops are validly Ordained and have Ordinary Jurisdiction. If that is not the case there is a very serious problem.

Quote:
I was never a regular reader at IA, so I do not know the facts. AMWills says he was a regular there and has related his experience. If you believe he is wrong then challenge him. Until the facts are clear, I cannot tell you if it was a personal attack.


IA has nothing to do with the tone of his post nor does his argument and everything to do with his choice of words and the overall tone of his post but enough of that. You seem to find certain behavior acceptable and I don't.

I certainly appreciate your civil tone and am enjoying the conversation.


Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:
Quote:
That is just one of the problems. There are no Pius XII Bishops left with Ordinary Jurisdiction. John pointed out that at least some of the Eastern Rite Bishops are validly Ordained and have Ordinary Jurisdiction. If that is not the case there is a very serious problem.


It is an assumption that there are no Pius XII bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. When these bishops resigned, who accepted their resignations? In order for a resignation to be valid, it must be accepted by one who has the authority to approve it. The bishops appointed by Pius XII are the lawful bishops of their diocese whether they realize this or not.

I am familiar with John's position that the antipope's appointments would be valid if the conditions are met through an act of supplied jurisdiction to the antipope. I have thought a lot about this too, and I agree with him. The argument is solid, as the Church supplies whenever the conditions are met. John is not limiting this to the eastern rites, but I would agree that that is the more likely place to find bishops, after the formation of the Conciliar church, who still have the Faith. I would also believe that this most likely would be the eastern bishops appointed in the 1960s, 70s and possibly 80s. It seems that the more recent bishops of the eastern rites are deeply infected with interfaith and communal prayer with schismatics.

Where then can the hierarchy be found?

1. All bishops appointed by Pius XII who have kept the Faith. (habitual jurisdiction of the pope)
2. All bishops appointed by John XXIII who have kept the Faith. (possibly habitual jurisdiction of the pope, but if not, then supplied jurisdiction to each act of appointment.)
3. It can be reasonably argued that since Paul VI professed public heresy in 1965, and since his previous acts and statements to that date cast suspicion on him of heresy, that a Catholic can form the judgment that his entire claim to the papacy was invalid due to being a heretic and a destroyer of the Faith and the Church. Therefore, any act of appointments by Paul VI would only come through specific acts of appointment when the conditions are met. (supplied jurisdiction)
4. John Paul I: I am not aware of any appointments by him, so I do not think he is worth looking at.
5. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis can all be combined, and they all follow the principle of Paul VI. They are public heretics and enemies of the Church. If they appointed a bishop who was a Catholic, and the conditions were met for supplied jurisdiction, then the appointed would be valid, not because of antipopes, but because the Church supplied for the act for the common good. (supplied jurisdiction)

So we are clear, let me state that the Church would not supply for a heretic or schismatic. I also highly doubt that it could be argued that the Church would supply for a bishop whose express desire was to lead his diocese to continue the use of the Novus Ordo sacrilege, and teach heresy and grave error as taught in Vatican II, post Vatican II documents and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." I do not see how that fosters the common good, as these rites and teachings are leading Catholics into heresy and grave error.

It seems to me that the bishops who make up the hierarchy can be found among the Pius XII and John XXIII appointees, along with Roman Rite bishops appointed by Paul VI prior to the universal use of the Novus Ordo Missae, along with eastern rite bishops appointed by any of the antipopes who have kept the Faith.

If we as Catholics wish to find the hierarchy, then the place to find them will be among those four groups of bishops. The fact that a bishop belongs to either of these groups is not enough for him to be a member of the hierarchy. It is also essential that they have kept the Faith.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Mike wrote:
SJ wrote:
Quote:
That is just one of the problems. There are no Pius XII Bishops left with Ordinary Jurisdiction. John pointed out that at least some of the Eastern Rite Bishops are validly Ordained and have Ordinary Jurisdiction. If that is not the case there is a very serious problem.


Quote:
Where then can the hierarchy be found?

1. All bishops appointed by Pius XII who have kept the Faith. (habitual jurisdiction of the pope)

The youngest person I know of to be consecrated a Bishop is 30. Given that if Pius the XII consecrated a 30 year old Bishop on the day he died and immediately gave him a diocese he would be 85 now. I would pretty much elimante the Pius XII line.

I have asked several times on several forums if anybody can show where Supplied Jurisdiction has ever been taught or claimed for anything other the administration of Sacraments. Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction. In other words I don't see how a person who is an invalid Bishop can be supplied jurisdiction by the Church. Just my thoughts on


Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
John,
The problem is that "the visible unity of the Church" is not what the Church means by "visibility of the Church" and you know it.


Taking this comment in its literal meaning, it is an allegation against me of dishonesty regarding sacred doctrine, and worse, dishonesty regarding sacred doctrine in a controversy in which any reader who gives me any real credit will be gravely misled about an extraordinarily weighty question.

Now, I presumed that you didn't mean what you actually wrote, so I didn't take offence. The written word can be terribly misleading. This is especially true of rapidly written words. Ponder that before you take others to be attacking your person.

Taking offence too readily can arise from different causes. Sometimes people simply lack the imagination required to see where the other person is coming from. Ken takes offence when he ought not to do so as well, I think. He has a big heart, however. When I take offence, as I do on occasion, it's not a lack of imagination, it's pride. So the same effect can have very different causes.

Ken's view of the Church is orthodox. He thinks that the hierarchy is presently hidden from us but not from some, and will re-emerge at some point. So it's objectively visible but subjectively (i.e. to you, him, and me) hidden. There's nothing unorthodox about that, and I say that even though my judgement differs violently with his on this question.

The main Protestant error on the visibility of the Church is that the Church herself is united by bonds that are invisible. For example, some Protestant heresiarchs said that the Church consists of all those in the state of grace; others that the Church consists of all those who are predestined. These ideas made the Church essentially invisible, known only to God and perhaps the angels. The Catholic doctrine, of which I have given the kernel above, is that the Church is by her very nature an externally visible society, her members being identifiable because the bonds that unite them are visible (i.e. baptism, which is a visible rite, profession of the faith, subjection to the one hierarchy, sharing in the one Sacrifice and sacraments). Ken's theory doesn't bring any of that into question, as far as I can see.

SJ, from what you wrote on this very thread I'd say you didn't know this doctrine yourself, so you're hardly in a position to assess others' ideas on it.

The existence of the hierarchy is an essential element of this doctrine, but so is the unity of faith, of worship, and of communion. Your theory is that the Church has a hierarchy composed of men who profess all manner of different doctrines, and of members who refuse to share in the same worship (i.e. most will only go to the Novus Ordo Missae, a tiny minority will only assist at the true Mass), and whose subjection to the hierarchy is simply unreal, a complete pretence. You and I don't obey the laws of the Conciliar church, nor do we assist at Holy Mass in a properly constituted Parish Church under the authority of the bishops of our respective dioceses. We are simply outside of the government of that sect, and necessarily so, because it will not tolerate for any length of time its members professing the true doctrines of the Catholic Faith. At some point it always attempts to force a compromise of conscience and obtain acceptance of its pet errors - liberty, equality, and fraternity. All trads are practical sedevacantists.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:14 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
I have asked several times on several forums if anybody can show where Supplied Jurisdiction has ever been taught or claimed for anything other the administration of Sacraments. Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction. In other words I don't see how a person who is an invalid Bishop can be supplied jurisdiction by the Church. Just my thoughts on


SJ, it's plain that you don't know what you are talking about.

What does this even mean? "Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction." It appears to be a total non sequitur.

In any case, if you want to believe that jurisdiction is only supplied for sacramental acts (an entirely baseless assertion), which seems to be what you're about, the onus is on you to prove it. Don't try and shift the burden of proof to others.

And supplied jurisdiction isn't "used". The fact that you can't get the terminology right shows that you haven't grasped the nature of the thing you're trying to grapple with. Read the book by Miaskewicz as a starter. http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Mia ... %20209.pdf

Miaskiewicz defines jurisdiction as follows: "In virtue of Christ’s commission the plenitude of ecclesiastical jurisdictional power lies in the hands of the Church. This power, as has been clearly pointed out above, implies action and direction, be it legislative, judicial or coercive. It comprises the public power in virtue of which the Church is assigned the task of leading men back to God." (Emphasis in the original).

As you can see, this is not restricted to sacramental actions. Nobody thinks that jurisdiction is only supplied for sacramental acts. Well, nobody except, it seems, you. And that's because you know nothing whatsoever about the subject, with all due respect.

Miaskiewicz points out, "For, as Kearney observed, it will escape no one that a series of invalid acts, posited by an unauthorized agent, whether maliciously or in good faith, especially when distributed over a long period of time, will raise havoc in society. And to forestall such dangers and calamities, provided that the necessary conditions are verified, namely, common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or of law, the necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church." Emphasis added. Invalid confessions would not "raise havoc in society" but invalid appointments to offices, invalidly promulgated laws, etc., certainly would.

If you had read Miaskiewicz you'd know that the controversy in the Middle Ages on this subject was not about whether any acts other than sacramental ones might attract the supply of jurisdiction, but the very opposite - viz. whether jurisdiction could be supplied for the internal forum - that is, for the sacrament of Penance.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Quote:
SJ, it's plain that you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
What does this even mean? "Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction." It appears to be a total non sequitur.


I posted that for those who might not understand that fact.

Quote:
In any case, if you want to believe that jurisdiction is only supplied for sacramental acts (an entirely baseless assertion), which seems to be what you're about, the onus is on you to prove it. Don't try and shift the burden of proof to others.


As I said I haven't not seen anything in Church documents that concern Supplied Jurisdiction being given by the Church for anthing other than the Juridic Sacraments. I am not opposed to the idea and merely asked for some documentation.

Quote:
And supplied jurisdiction isn't "used". The fact that you can't get the terminology right shows that you haven't grasped the nature of the thing you're trying to grapple with. Read the book by Miaskewicz as a starter. http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Mia ... %20209.pdf

I have read the book and Supplied Jurisdiction is used when a Priest without Ordinary Jurisdiction forgives a sin in an emergency.

Quote:
Miaskiewicz defines jurisdiction as follows: "In virtue of Christ’s commission the plenitude of ecclesiastical jurisdictional power lies in the hands of the Church. This power, as has been clearly pointed out above, implies action and direction, be it legislative, judicial or coercive. It comprises the public power in virtue of which the Church is assigned the task of leading men back to God." (Emphasis in the origin
al).

As you can see, this is not restricted to sacramental actions. Nobody thinks that jurisdiction is only supplied for sacramental acts. Well, nobody except, it seems, you. And that's because you know nothing whatsoever about the subject, with all due respect.


I am not saying that Ordinary Jurisdiction is solely for the Sacraments. that would be a ludicrous position. what I am saying is that as far as I can see the actual application of Supplied Jurisdiction is only in regards to the Juridic Sacraments.

Miaskiewicz points out, "For, as Kearney observed, it will escape no one that a series of invalid acts, posited by an unauthorized agent, whether maliciously or in good faith, especially when distributed over a long period of time, will raise havoc in society. And to forestall such dangers and calamities, provided that the necessary conditions are verified, namely, common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or of law, the necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church." Emphasis added. Invalid confessions would not "raise havoc in society" but invalid appointments to offices, invalidly promulgated laws, etc., certainly would.

WE are not talking about an unauthorized agent but an invalid one.


Sun Sep 08, 2013 1:50 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:

Quote:
The youngest person I know of to be consecrated a Bishop is 30. Given that if Pius the XII consecrated a 30 year old Bishop on the day he died and immediately gave him a diocese he would be 85 now. I would pretty much elimante the Pius XII line.


These are the remaining Pius XII bishops:

Ordained
Bishop Years Name Current Title
24 Aug 1951 62.04 Ján Chryzostom Cardinal Korec, S.J. Bishop Emeritus of Nitra, Slovakia
25 Mar 1954 59.45 Bishop Jan van Cauwelaert, C.I.C.M. Bishop Emeritus of Inongo, Congo (Dem. Rep.)
28 Aug 1955 58.03 Archbishop José de Jesús Pimiento Rodriguez Archbishop Emeritus of Manizales, Colombia
9 Sep 1955 57.99 Bishop Dominik Kalata, S.J. Titular Bishop of Semta
29 Jun 1956 57.19 Archbishop George Hamilton Pearce, S.M. Archbishop Emeritus of Suva, Fiji, Pacific (Oceania)
29 Jul 1956 57.11 Fiorenzo Cardinal Angelini President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Roman Curia
22 Sep 1957 55.96 Archbishop José Maria Pires Archbishop Emeritus of Paraíba, Paraiba, Brazil
29 Sep 1957 55.94 Bishop Felice Leonardo Bishop Emeritus of Cerreto Sannita-Telese-Sant’Agata de’ Goti, Italy
27 Apr 1958 55.36 Archbishop Bernardino Piñera Carvallo Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena, Chile
10 Aug 1958 55.08 Bishop Caetano Antônio Lima dos Santos, O.F.M. Cap. Bishop Emeritus of Ilhéus, Baia, Brazil
14 Sep 1958 54.98 Bishop Antonio José Ramírez Salaverría Bishop Emeritus of Maturín, Venezuela

These are the remaining John XXIII bishops:

19 Mar 1959 54.47 Bishop John Jobst, S.A.C. Bishop Emeritus of Broome, Australia
7 May 1959 54.33 Serafim Cardinal Fernandes de Araújo Archbishop Emeritus of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
24 Apr 1960 53.37 Archbishop Moisés Julio Blanchoud Archbishop Emeritus of Salta, Argentina
21 Jun 1960 53.21 Archbishop Arturo Antonio Szymanski Ramírez Archbishop Emeritus of San Luis Potosí, México
25 Jul 1960 53.12 Bishop Eloy Tato Losada, I.E.M.E. Bishop Emeritus of Magangué, Colombia
28 Aug 1960 53.03 Archbishop Armando Círio, O.S.I. Archbishop Emeritus of Cascavel, Parana, Brazil
18 Jan 1961 52.64 Bishop Paul-Émile Charbonneau Bishop Emeritus of Hull, Québec, Canada
16 Apr 1961 52.39 Bishop Mario Renato Cornejo Radavero Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Lima, Peru
22 Apr 1961 52.38 Bishop Albert-Georges-Yves Malbois Bishop Emeritus of Evry-Corbeil-Essonnes, France
14 May 1961 52.31 Archbishop Carlos Quintero Arce Archbishop Emeritus of Hermosillo, Sonora, México
21 May 1961 52.29 Bishop Placidus Gervasius Nkalanga, O.S.B. Bishop Emeritus of Bukoba, Tanzania
9 Jul 1961 52.16 Bishop Louis Nganga a Ndzando Bishop Emeritus of Lisala, Congo (Dem. Rep.)
16 Jul 1961 52.14 Nasrallah Pierre Cardinal Sfeir Patriarch Emeritus of Antiochia {Antioch} (Maronite), Lebanon
30 Jul 1961 52.10 Giovanni Cardinal Canestri Archbishop Emeritus of Genova {Genoa}, Italy
24 Aug 1961 52.04 Bishop William John McNaughton, M.M. Bishop Emeritus of Incheon {Inch’on}, Korea (South)
8 Sep 1961 52.00 Bishop José de Jesús Sahagún de la Parra Bishop Emeritus of Ciudad Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán, México
15 Oct 1961 51.89 Bishop Andrés Sapelak, S.D.B. Bishop Emeritus of Santa María del Patrocinio en Buenos Aires (Ukrainian), Argentina
29 Oct 1961 51.86 Archbishop Antônio Ribeiro de Oliveira Archbishop Emeritus of Goiânia, Goias, Brazil
6 Jan 1962 51.67 Bishop José Mauro Ramalho de Alarcón Santiago Bishop Emeritus of Iguatú, Ceara, Brazil
11 Feb 1962 51.57 Bishop Gregorio Garavito Jiménez, S.M.M. Bishop Emeritus of Villavicencio, Colombia
19 Mar 1962 51.47 Bishop Roberto Reinaldo Cáceres González Bishop Emeritus of Melo, Uruguay
10 Jun 1962 51.24 Archbishop Robert-Casimir Tonyui Messan Dosseh-Anyron Archbishop Emeritus of Lomé, Togo
25 Jul 1962 51.12 Bishop Jacques Landriault Bishop Emeritus of Timmins, Ontario, Canada
22 Aug 1962 51.04 Duraisamy Simon Cardinal Lourdusamy Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Roman Curia
22 Aug 1962 51.04 Bishop Anselmo Zarza Bernal Bishop Emeritus of León, Guanajuato, México
30 Aug 1962 51.02 Archbishop Raymond Gerhardt Hunthausen Archbishop Emeritus of Seattle, Washington, USA
12 Sep 1962 50.99 Bishop Myles McKeon Bishop Emeritus of Bunbury, Australia
14 Dec 1962 50.73 Bishop Remi Joseph De Roo Bishop Emeritus of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
24 Feb 1963 50.54 Bishop Yves-Georges-René Ramousse, M.E.P. Vicar Apostolic Emeritus of Phnom-Penh, Cambodia
19 Mar 1963 50.47 Bishop José Guadalupe Padilla Lozano Bishop Emeritus of Veracruz, México
19 Apr 1963 50.38 Emmanuel III (Emmanuel-Karim) Cardinal Delly Patriarch Emeritus of Babylon {Babilonia} (Chaldean), Iraq
21 Apr 1963 50.38 Bishop Salvatore Nicolosi Bishop Emeritus of Noto, Italy
9 May 1963 50.33 Bishop Géry-Jacques-Charles Leuliet Bishop Emeritus of Amiens, France

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:54 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:

Quote:
I have asked several times on several forums if anybody can show where Supplied Jurisdiction has ever been taught or claimed for anything other the administration of Sacraments. Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction. In other words I don't see how a person who is an invalid Bishop can be supplied jurisdiction by the Church. Just my thoughts on


I realize that you and John are already discussing this point, but I think this should answer this for you:

Quote:
There is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply. There is no jurisdiction which the Church will not supply, provided that the proper conditions are verified. But as Berutti well points out,66 no greater nor any more jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of common error than that which in reality corres- ponds to the measure and coincides with the content either of the jurisdictional competence associated with some entrusted function (munus) or of the authorized powers inherent in some established office (officium), when it is solely to the extent of that function and office that the common error of the faithful has been occasioned.
. (Miaskiewicz, p. 304)

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Sep 08, 2013 4:15 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
What does this even mean? "Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid if it is invalid due to defect in matter, form, intention or an invalid minister so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction." It appears to be a total non sequitur.


I posted that for those who might not understand that fact.


There's a fact - "Supplied Jurisdiction can not make an invalid Sacrament Valid" - and then there's a conclusion - "so I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction." The conclusion is not even related to the premise. What do you mean by tacking that assertion on the end? You may as well have added, "so black cats eat mice also" and it would have made as much sense.

St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
In any case, if you want to believe that jurisdiction is only supplied for sacramental acts (an entirely baseless assertion), which seems to be what you're about, the onus is on you to prove it. Don't try and shift the burden of proof to others.


As I said I haven't not seen anything in Church documents that concern Supplied Jurisdiction being given by the Church for anthing other than the Juridic Sacraments. I am not opposed to the idea and merely asked for some documentation.


You're not opposed to the idea? You just wrote, "I don't think it can be used for anything but a lack of Sacramental Jurisdiction."

You don't take serious things seriously. You claim to have read Miaskiewicz's book. Yet you don't know what's in it. This is not IA.

Quote:
I have read the book and Supplied Jurisdiction is used when a Priest without Ordinary Jurisdiction forgives a sin in an emergency.


Such a priest places an act and the Church supplies the jurisdiction to validate the act. Such a priest doesn't exercise any jurisdiction because he doesn't have any. If he did, there would be no supply. The fact that there's a supply implies necessarily that the priest doesn't have the required faculties.

To exercise something you have to have it. Yes, I know that it is common for traditionalist priests to speak of exercising supplied jurisdiction. I think they're wrong. Supplied jurisdiction only exists as act, not as habit.

St.Justin wrote:
Quote:
Miaskiewicz points out, "For, as Kearney observed, it will escape no one that a series of invalid acts, posited by an unauthorized agent, whether maliciously or in good faith, especially when distributed over a long period of time, will raise havoc in society. And to forestall such dangers and calamities, provided that the necessary conditions are verified, namely, common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or of law, the necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church." Emphasis added. Invalid confessions would not "raise havoc in society" but invalid appointments to offices, invalidly promulgated laws, etc., certainly would.


WE are not talking about an unauthorized agent but an invalid one.


Neither the possession of ordinary jurisdiction, nor the possession of an ecclesiastical office, requires valid holy orders in the subject. A layman would be pope, with full jurisdiction over the entire Church, the instant he accepts his election. Likewise a layman or a priest appointed to a vacant episcopal see has the attached jurisdiction the moment he takes possession of the office, even if his episcopal consecration is delayed by months or even years. He can place jurisdictional acts perfectly validly. St Laurence O'Toole did so in Dublin for a few months prior to his consecration, for example.

Of course such a bishop (i.e. one not yet consecrated) cannot validly ordain priests. But that's an unrelated matter that nobody has ever raised in this connection.

Anyway, it would be better if you didn't enter into any of this. You don't understand it and you're wasting everybody's time. This is not IA, where the only seriousness is the repeated, daily, grave sin against both justice and charity which characterises pretty much every discussion.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
Ken takes offence when he ought not to do so as well, I think.

Sigh....yes, you are most certainly correct on this, John. Some of that, of course, is based in pride: but often it is due to some medical issue....like a bout of severe depression, or when my blood-sugar crashes, or when I have a bad reaction to one of my medications. Often then, I will say or do something incredibly stupid! :oops: Other times, it is simply "rash judgement", which is a sin. :cry:

John Lane wrote:
Ken's view of the Church is orthodox. He thinks that the hierarchy is presently hidden from us but not from some, and will re-emerge at some point. So it's objectively visible but subjectively (i.e. to you, him, and me) hidden.

Well, yes, but that explanation is not quite complete: I also believe that valid hierarchy can be found in bishops whose retirement has been "accepted" by an invalid superior.

John Lane wrote:
There's nothing unorthodox about that, and I say that even though my judgement differs violently with his on this question.

Oh, dear! "Violently". I had no idea. I certainly do not differ violently from your strict sedevacantist views. You can, quite simply, be just as wrong as I. :lol:

John Lane wrote:
All trads are practical sedevacantists.

Agreed. We must be...for the safety of our own souls.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:
Quote:
Bishops Emeritus have no Ordinary Jurisdiction so they don't count toward the visibility of the hierarchy.


Are you sure they are retired? They must submit and have their resignations accepted by the pope. Until that happens, they remain the lawful ordinary of their diocese.

Can. 187 is clear on this point. I urge you to read the Canon and commentary here: http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCan ... 3/mode/2up

Paul VI and his successors were public heretics, therefore not popes. They had no authority to accept the resignations of bishops.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:50 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
I agree with the law and have been one who pushes recognition of it.
One of the problems is that even though technically they remain Ordinaries their behavior belies the fact. Once a they tender their resignations and a new Bishop has been appointed they no longer function as Ordinaries. So on a practical level they cease to be Ordinaries.

On another level if you take the position that invalid Popes and Bishops still function as Ordinaries through Supplied Jurisdiction then surely accepting resignations is covered under that line of thinking.

Mike wrote:
SJ wrote:
Quote:
Bishops Emeritus have no Ordinary Jurisdiction so they don't count toward the visibility of the hierarchy.


Are you sure they are retired? They must submit and have their resignations accepted by the pope. Until that happens, they remain the lawful ordinary of their diocese.

Can. 187 is clear on this point. I urge you to read the Canon and commentary here: http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCan ... 3/mode/2up

Paul VI and his successors were public heretics, therefore not popes. They had no authority to accept the resignations of bishops.


Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: On "Schism"
SJ wrote:

Quote:
One of the problems is that even though technically they remain Ordinaries their behavior belies the fact. Once a they tender their resignations and a new Bishop has been appointed they no longer function as Ordinaries. So on a practical level they cease to be Ordinaries.


Their behavior shows that they believed that they resigned, but their subjective belief does not change the objective fact. They are not exercising the power they have as an ordinary, but they possess it. If a bishop were in a coma, he would also not exercise his power as bishop, but he alone would possess it.

Quote:
On another level if you take the position that invalid Popes and Bishops still function as Ordinaries through Supplied Jurisdiction then surely accepting resignations is covered under that line of thinking.


This statement makes me wonder if you understand what supplied jurisdiction is, and how it differs from habitual jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction does not allow anyone to function as an ordinary. When an act is supplied by the Church, it is supplied for specific acts only when the conditions are met.

The Church supplies only when the conditions are met. If the antipope appointed bishop John Smith to Diocese X, and the conditions were met, he would then become the lawful bishop of that diocese and would exercise habitual jurisdiction.

The antipope is not by that acting as a pope, his involvement is accidental, it is the Church itself which supplied for the act of jurisdiction in appointing the bishop. At no time does the antipope possess jurisdiction. All of his acts are an illegal usurpation of authority.

For example, if Paul VI appointed John Smith as a bishop in 1967, and all of the conditions for supplied jurisdiction were met, that appointment would be a valid appointment, and Bishop Smith would be the ordinary of his diocese, as the act of appointment would have been supplied to the antipope.

Not every appointment of the antipope would be valid, in order for he Church to supply it must be for the common good. It is not for the common good that a heretic is appointed. In my opinion, I think it could be argued that a bishop whose goal is to continue the use of the Novus Ordo, to teach the errors of Vatican II and continue to use the "Catechism of The Catholic Church," as a teaching document, would certainly not be acting for the common good of his diocese. Even if this bishop were not a public heretic, his acts as bishop would harm souls, and I do not believe the Church would supply for his appointment.

It appears to me that bishops in this category would be those appointed by Paul VI prior to the universal use of the Novus Ordo, and eastern rite bishops. This would of course presume that they held and professed the true Faith.

In addition to reading the excellent book that John took the time to scan for us, I would also urge you to read this short but excellent explanation of supplied jurisdiction: http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCan ... 3/mode/2up. (Page 190 with the paragraph starting with "Can. 209.")

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Mike, I concur with everything you wrote with a few exceptions. If a Bishop were in a coma or not fulfilling his duties the Pope, for the common good, could and should appoint a successor which is quite a normal thing to do in those circumstances.

I don't know why everyone on here seems to think I don't understand Ordinary and Supplied Jurisdiction as I understand it quite well though I am no expert nor do I think anyone else I have talked with is other than Canon Hesse. Supplied Jurisdiction is supplied by the Church to whomever and when ever a specific Juridic action is required for the good of a person's soul or the good of the Church and last only as long as it takes to fulfill that action. Because I don't agee with certain conclusions does not mean I don't understand the subject matter. I would Just like to make it clear that I don't put myself in the following category but It is very evident in the Church that even Saints disagree with each others conclusions, Sts. Peter and Paul and Augustine and Jerome readily come to mind.

Mike wrote:
SJ wrote:

Quote:
One of the problems is that even though technically they remain Ordinaries their behavior belies the fact. Once a they tender their resignations and a new Bishop has been appointed they no longer function as Ordinaries. So on a practical level they cease to be Ordinaries.


Their behavior shows that they believed that they resigned, but their subjective belief does not change the objective fact. They are not exercising the power they have as an ordinary, but they possess it. If a bishop were in a coma, he would also not exercise his power as bishop, but he alone would possess it.

Quote:
On another level if you take the position that invalid Popes and Bishops still function as Ordinaries through Supplied Jurisdiction then surely accepting resignations is covered under that line of thinking.


This statement makes me wonder if you understand what supplied jurisdiction is, and how it differs from habitual jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction does not allow anyone to function as an ordinary. When as act is supplied by the Church, it is supplied for specific acts only when the conditions are met.

The Church supplies only when the conditions are met. If the antipope appointed bishop John Smith to Diocese X, and the conditions were met, he would then become the lawful bishop of that diocese and would exercise habitual jurisdiction.

The antipope is not by that acting as a pope, his involvement is accidental, it is the Church itself which supplied for the act of jurisdiction in appointing the bishop. At no time does the antipope possess jurisdiction. All of his acts are an illegal usurpation of authority.

For example, if Paul VI appointed John Smith as a bishop in 1967, and all of the conditions for supplied jurisdiction were met, that appointment would be a valid appointment, and Bishop Smith would be the ordinary of his diocese, as the act of appointment would have been supplied to the antipope.

Not every appointment of the antipope would be valid, in order for he Church to supply it must be for the common good. It is not for the common good that a heretic is appointed. In my opinion, I think it could be argued that a bishop whose goal is to continue the use of the Novus Ordo, to teach the errors of Vatican II and continue to use the "Catechism of The Catholic Church," as a teaching document, would certainly not be acting for the common good of his diocese. Even if this bishop were not a public heretic, his acts as bishop would harm souls, and I do not believe the Church would supply for his appointment.

It appears to me that bishops in this category would be those appointed by Paul VI prior to the universal use of the Novus Ordo, and eastern rite bishops. This would of course presume that they held and professed the true Faith.

In addition to reading the excellent book that John took the time to scan for us, I would also urge you to read this short but excellent explanation of supplied jurisdiction: http://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCan ... 3/mode/2up. (Page 190 with the paragraph starting with "Can. 209.")


Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
I don't know why everyone on here seems to think I don't understand Ordinary and Supplied Jurisdiction as I understand it quite well though I am no expert nor do I think anyone else I have talked with is other than Canon Hesse.


I, for one, freely admit that I do not understand Ordinary and Supplied Jurisdiction as some of the others on this forum do. I understand the words and I understand what they mean, but the concept in toto simply goes beyond my intellectual capacity. I am forced to trust others that I have found capable. I also know that there are certain traditional bishops and priests I trust and none of them claim to have ordinary jurisdiction though I still have a gut feeling (and no doubt I would be told I am 100% wrong) that some of these bishops should claim ordinary jurisdiction since they are the only Catholic bishop (and possibly, in some cases, the only Catholic clergy) living in a particular diocese.


Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:13 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Mike, I concur with everything you wrote with a few exceptions. If a Bishop were in a coma or not fulfilling his duties the Pope, for the common good, could and should appoint a successor which is quite a normal thing to do in those circumstances.


SJ, you appear to know nothing at all, seriously. The pope doesn't remove the bishop of an embarrassed see (which is what this would be, look it up) as a rule. The see would remain embarrassed. In very exceptional circumstances the pope might intervene to provide a solution (e.g. appoint a coadjutor?), but bishops simply aren't replaced against their will. I thought everybody knew this. You are obviously an exception.

St.Justin wrote:
I don't know why everyone on here seems to think I don't understand Ordinary and Supplied Jurisdiction as I understand it quite well


I don't think you do, but more importantly, I think you have a terrible propensity to imagine how things would be then assume that they are so. See above for a good example. The pope isn't some kind of benign dictator. The Church has a divinely created constitution and it exists prior to any individual pope.

St.Justin wrote:
though I am no expert nor do I think anyone else I have talked with is other than Canon Hesse.


I never understood the interest in, and especially not the respect for, Canon Hesse. He comes across as a worldly, loud-mouthed, uncouth, ignoramus with the gift of the gab. I do not exaggerate. Can anybody say what it is that Hesse added for trads? Any particular subject that he provided a particular contribution towards?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Twice in barely more than a month, Pope Benedict XVI has taken a highly unusual step: removing a bishop from his office. Early in April he ousted Bishop Jean-Claude Makaya Loemba from leadership in the Diocese of Pointe-Noire in the Congo. Last week he removed Bishop William Morris from the Diocese of Toowoomba, Australia.

The Vatican disclosed these moves with only the briefest of formal announcements, offering no details or explanations of the Pope’s moves. But the available evidence suggests that Bishop Loemba was removed because of general negligence or incompetence, whereas in the case of Bishop Morris the Holy Father stepped in because of doctrinal and liturgical problems. In each case, we are told, the bishop resisted pressure to resign quietly, forcing the Pope to take decisive action.


Is this a joke? Seriously.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Florida
New post Re: On "Schism"
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
Twice in barely more than a month, Pope Benedict XVI has taken a highly unusual step: removing a bishop from his office. Early in April he ousted Bishop Jean-Claude Makaya Loemba from leadership in the Diocese of Pointe-Noire in the Congo. Last week he removed Bishop William Morris from the Diocese of Toowoomba, Australia.

The Vatican disclosed these moves with only the briefest of formal announcements, offering no details or explanations of the Pope’s moves. But the available evidence suggests that Bishop Loemba was removed because of general negligence or incompetence, whereas in the case of Bishop Morris the Holy Father stepped in because of doctrinal and liturgical problems. In each case, we are told, the bishop resisted pressure to resign quietly, forcing the Pope to take decisive action.


Is this a joke? Seriously.


How so?


Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:13 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: On "Schism"
St.Justin wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
St.Justin wrote:
Twice in barely more than a month, Pope Benedict XVI has taken a highly unusual step: removing a bishop from his office. Early in April he ousted Bishop Jean-Claude Makaya Loemba from leadership in the Diocese of Pointe-Noire in the Congo. Last week he removed Bishop William Morris from the Diocese of Toowoomba, Australia.

The Vatican disclosed these moves with only the briefest of formal announcements, offering no details or explanations of the Pope’s moves. But the available evidence suggests that Bishop Loemba was removed because of general negligence or incompetence, whereas in the case of Bishop Morris the Holy Father stepped in because of doctrinal and liturgical problems. In each case, we are told, the bishop resisted pressure to resign quietly, forcing the Pope to take decisive action.


Is this a joke? Seriously.


How so?


Well, did you ever hear of a "Council" called Vatican II, and all the novelties that came after it? New sacraments, new "Mass", new Creed, new Pater, new Code of canon law, new catechism, etc. etc.? Of course I`m being ironic here... but how can you quote Rat in order to prove anything???

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
For the sake of those who do learn, popes only remove bishops as punishments for crimes (e.g. heresy, schism, or some other grave crime deserving of such a devastating punishment). A pope certainly wouldn't remove a bishop due to illness, even total incapacitation.

According to the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (which is still in effect, BTW), if any bishop should become incapacitated for any reason, and that incapacitation was extended beyond a certain period of time, a co-adjutor would be appointed who would help the bishop until either that bishop died, or regained his mental and/or physical faculties.

If the bishop concerned died, another would be appointed by the Holy See, and that one would not necessarily be the co-adjutor.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Thanks Ken. Whether or not a coadjutor would succeed on the death of his bishop would depend on whether he had the right of succession, which not all coadjutor bishops have.

The case of Wiseman's coadjutor, George Errington, is illustrative. Errington had the right of succession. However he was a troublemaker. Fr. Faber said that he appeared preoccupied with stopping anybody who was trying to do good. :) George Errington centred his hostility on Manning. However Manning was too good and valuable a man for that to succeed - both Wiseman and Pius IX held him in the highest regard. Pius IX could not remove Errington (he had committed no crime), but he wanted to do so. Eventually he resorted to the expedient of ordering Errington to resign. :) He also made it clear to Manning that he was the beneficiary of an unique papal intervention and he should expect no further favours.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
Pius IX could not remove Errington (he had committed no crime), but he wanted to do so.

Hmm... would this (the pope being unable to simply sack a bishop) help explain how the Catholic Church came to be crawling with Modernist bishops and cardinals by 1958? They were too sneaky to make it obvious that they were Modernists, and nothing happened to them, for the most part?


Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:04 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Brendan wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Pius IX could not remove Errington (he had committed no crime), but he wanted to do so.

Hmm... would this (the pope being unable to simply sack a bishop) help explain how the Catholic Church came to be crawling with Modernist bishops and cardinals by 1958? They were too sneaky to make it obvious that they were Modernists, and nothing happened to them, for the most part?


Yes, of course.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
Thanks Ken. Whether or not a coadjutor would succeed on the death of his bishop would depend on whether he had the right of succession, which not all coadjutor bishops have.

The case of Wiseman's coadjutor, George Errington, is illustrative. Errington had the right of succession. However he was a troublemaker. Fr. Faber said that he appeared preoccupied with stopping anybody who was trying to do good. :) George Errington centred his hostility on Manning. However Manning was too good and valuable a man for that to succeed - both Wiseman and Pius IX held him in the highest regard. Pius IX could not remove Errington (he had committed no crime), but he wanted to do so. Eventually he resorted to the expedient of ordering Errington to resign. :) He also made it clear to Manning that he was the beneficiary of an unique papal intervention and he should expect no further favours.



John, I may have missed your references for this(that a Pope can't remove a bishop who has committed no crime) can you point me to them please.

Thanks in advance,

Lance


Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: On "Schism"
Lance Tardugno wrote:
John, I may have missed your references for this(that a Pope can't remove a bishop who has committed no crime) can you point me to them please.

I, too, would be interested in seeing this. It seems to me that if the Pope has the authority (which he does) to appoint a certain one "Bishop", he would also have the authority to recall such an one.

However, to my knowledge, this has never ever been done in the entire history of the Church. I would like to see this explained.

It also seems to me that there are many things that are simply "not done" or its opposite, which are not supported by written-out laws. But this should be expected: after all, to my mind, if the Church was able to be described with one single word, it would have to be "love".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:31 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
I have no references. I doubt they exist.

The argument that a pope can remove a bishop without cause would need to be supported by quotes, I think. I have pointed to the Errington case, which is easy enough to research. Pius IX tried everything - including offering Errington a diocese in the Carribbean - to no avail. His solution in the end was a masterpiece of creativity.

There are lots of things that a pope cannot lawfully do, such as change the faith or make a sinful command. The Code gives the various ways in which a bishop can be separated from his office. If the case is to be made that there is an additional way, then it will have to be proved.

My guess as to why the pope cannot do such a thing is that it would be unjust.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: On "Schism"
John Lane wrote:
I have no references. I doubt they exist.

The argument that a pope can remove a bishop without cause would need to be supported by quotes, I think. I have pointed to the Errington case, which is easy enough to research. Pius IX tried everything - including offering Errington a diocese in the Carribbean - to no avail. His solution in the end was a masterpiece of creativity.

There are lots of things that a pope cannot lawfully do, such as change the faith or make a sinful command. The Code gives the various ways in which a bishop can be separated from his office. If the case is to be made that there is an additional way, then it will have to be proved.

My guess as to why the pope cannot do such a thing is that it would be unjust.


John,

It seems to me that a Pope can dissolve a diocese and then create a new one with different parameters or at the very least incorporate the old one into an adjacent one making a larger one. This would seem to be an effective way in ridding the Church of a bad bishop.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:15 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Lance Tardugno wrote:
John,

It seems to me that a Pope can dissolve a diocese and then create a new one with different parameters or at the very least incorporate the old one into an adjacent one making a larger one. This would seem to be an effective way in ridding the Church of a bad bishop.


Dear Lance, you and Pius IX are competing in creativity. :)

The fact is that bad bishops, in the sense of bishops who were incompetent, lazy, or even quite bad sinners, so long as they didn't commit any actual crimes, were virtually always left in place by the popes. And I doubt that Errington would have been removed if he had already succeeded to the Archdiocese of Westminster, despite the fact that he would have a total disaster.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: On "Schism"
I wonder what Our Blessed Lord did in the case of the Bad Bishop among the twelve...

Ohh wait, he allowed him to betray him... Interesting my dear Watson :shock:.

Yes so long as someone was not grossly immoral, or a heretic in general the Popes did not intervene because your Bishop is the one who shepherds you. I am not sure if you have ever heard this Catholic maxim enough, but pray for your priest and Bishops. This is why contemplative religious were completely essential to the diocese, they were the backbone against the onslaught of demonic activity against Catholics if your captain falls what will happen to the army? They will surely perish, as always the devil knows which fish give more efficiency in his economy of damnation.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: On "Schism"
I posted the quote from Billot on Suscipe Domine (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/inde ... #msg177705), on the fact that that the Church cannot adhere to a false Pope, it would therefore adhere to a false rule of faith;
tradical replied:
Quote:
Hi Michael,

Thanks for this.

This raises the question of what does he mean by 'whole Church'? Is he discussing the Church Teaching, Church Learning or the combination of the two? That is left unanswered in this quotation. However, if combined with Hunter et al, we find that it is the Church Teaching that is indicated as it is required for the indefectibility of the Church for the Church Teaching (the Bishops) to be united to the Vicar of Christ in order to preserve the constitution of the Church.

As noted earlier, the Church Teaching has unanimously accepted each of the last six pontiffs, establishing the Dogmatic Fact.

The next point is that there appears to be a conflation of ideas in John's earlier citation. The principle being put forward is that general adhesion/recognition by the Church (what ever combination he is using) to the elected pontiff creates the dogmatic fact. Trying to deny the establishment of the fact by saying that no one takes the Pope for a rule of faith (which when you consider that no de fide teachings have been declared since the Assumption) is a degree removed from what they have said.

The root is this:

Quote

He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. ... Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. end of quote


As noted earlier, this is consistent with Hunter et al.

John is trying to work around the dogmatic fact by saying that no one is taking the Pope as a rule of faith and therefore he isn't Pope. This is taking a subordinate principle and using it to alter the superior principle. This is not legitimate in a logical sense and confirms my opinion (after reviewing some of his other writings) that he is operating under a very strong confirmation bias.

To sum up, John has inverted the principles and said: No one is taking the Pope as a rule of faith, ergo he can't be Pope. That is not what Bellarmine said.

Bellarmine, Hunter et al assert that the acceptance of the Pope by the Church (Hunter et al are more specific about what they mean by Church) cannot be wrong. The reason why this must be so is the 'rule of faith', which hearkens back to indefectibility. This is the correct hierarchy of the principles as denoted by Bellarmine et al.

His reply is that the fundamental principle is that the Church teaching (the body of bishops) cannot accept a false Pope; as this would be against the indefectibility of the Church. So that the adherence of the bishops to the Pope establishes an infallible dogmatic fact.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:26 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Michael Wilson wrote:
His reply is that the fundamental principle is that the Church teaching (the body of bishops) cannot accept a false Pope; as this would be against the indefectibility of the Church. So that the adherence of the bishops to the Pope establishes an infallible dogmatic fact.


I agree that this is what Hunter seems to say (and he isn't the only one), but the problem is to identify what the cause of this opinion is, in Hunter. That is, is Hunter telling us that this is part of the revealed Deposit, or a conclusion he has reached from some revealed truth? We cannot tell, for he is, being a manualist, too brief.

Now, we know from other sources that this imagined revealed truth simply wasn't revealed. It isn't a part of the body of revealed truths witnessed to by the theologians. But something else is there, another truth, the truth that Billot expresses, which is that the Church must and always does regard the pope as its proximate rule of faith.

Now, it is a fact, a plain and uncontroversial fact, that nobody treats Bergoglio as his rule of faith. Traditionalists don't learn from him any more than the children of Modernism do. We ignore his doctrinal instructions, or openly protest against them, and the children of Modernism praise him when he agrees with them and stand ready to condemn him the moment he doesn't. He is not anybody's principle, he is merely a prominent commentator. So he isn't anybody's pope, actually.

This being true, the conclusion that would follow, as Billot explains, doesn't follow in this case.

Tradical labours under another error, one which might be harder to root out because so common these days, which is that he imagines that the pope only constitutes the proximate rule of faith when he defines. This is a total novelty.

If we consider the problem from another perspective, the unity of the Church in charity, rather than her unity in faith as we have been, we are confronted by the same problem. Say that all truly accepted Paul VI as pope in say, 1966 (i.e. from his election until then). On that hypothesis we will need to explain the catastrophic collapse in faith that had occurred under his tutelage. But more, we will then need to explain the manifest fact of the gigantic schism which appeared within a couple of years, with the imposition of the New Mass and its rejection by those with the soundest faith. These included bishops. The unity of worship was thereby sundered, along with the unity of charity. Suddenly those who maintained the true faith and worship of the Catholic Church were physically and morally separated from the body of all other Christians. In order to avoid this problem one would have to argue that the division was incidental, accidental, not essential; in a word, that nothing truly fundamental was at issue. But that's not our view, and more importantly, it wasn't the view of the traditional Catholics or of Paul VI and co. All agreed, by their actions, that what was at stake was the very heart of religion. Well, "the pope" was on the other side of this schism, and he caused it. How was he the pope of the Catholic Church, of traditional Catholics? He wasn't.

The whole problem is today presented in three theses: 1. Modernists who regard the pope as teacher in an entirely new light and for them, the pope is the president of the Church and Bergoglio and predecessors are just fine in that role. 2. Sedeplenists who hold that while we have had a true pope the whole time, we have not had any pope acting as pope in that time. That is, none of them taught infallibly, for example, or used their full authority to impose their evil reforms, so that they have been mere figureheads. For some reason these people regard it as very, very, important that these men whose acts have all been utterly irrelevant - except for their evil acts - be regarded as Vicars of Christ. Nobody ever can say why this is. 3. Our thesis, which takes them at face value and agrees that none of them has been what the pope essentially is, the principle of unity of the Church in faith and charity, but quite the contrary - they have dissolved the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:44 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post Re: On "Schism"
Quote:
2. Sedeplenists who hold that while we have had a true pope the whole time, we have not had any pope acting as pope in that time. That is, none of them taught infallibly, for example, or used their full authority to impose their evil reforms, so that they have been mere figureheads. For some reason these people regard it as very, very, important that these men whose acts have all been utterly irrelevant - except for their evil acts - be regarded as Vicars of Christ. Nobody ever can say why this is.


Just in case anybody thinks this an exaggeration or a misrepresentation of the essential "sedeplenist" position:

Fr. Dominic Bourmaud wrote:
Since the publication of Humanae Vitae, the Pope has not used his power of infallibility to rule on an open question of faith or morals, considering that he no longer has the strength to oppose the powerful bishops' conferences. What is true for orthodox teaching is true a fortiori for heterodox teaching. This conclusion alone destroys the principal arguments of the sedevacantists.*

* According to them, the chair of Peter is vacant because Rome teaches heresy in decrees of the magisterium which, if they truly came from the pope, would be infallible. However, the first condition of pontifical infallibility is the intention to bind the universal Church, an intention which has vanished de facto since 1968.

One Hundred Years of Modernism, Angelus Press, Kansas City, Mo., 2006, p. 285.


As one can readily perceive, there's no argument about fact here between us and the sedeplenist scholar Fr. Bourmaud - there has been no pope acting as pope since 1968 (or, at least, from 1968 to 1978). The difference is that he asserts that Paul VI was pope despite not employing papal authority, and we say he wasn't pope and that is why he didn't employ papal authority. For Fr. Bourmaud, Paul VI after 1968 was a cardboard cutout pope, for display purposes only. Again, in case this witticism of Fr. Cekada's is thought to be an exaggeration (something he is famous for, after all), Fr. Bourmaud specifically asserts that Paul VI was "a figurehead" (p. 285 also) and he speaks of "papal abdication."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: On "Schism"
Quote:
Again, in case this witticism of Fr. Cekada's is thought to be an exaggeration (something he is famous for, after all)


Is father famous for witticism, exaggeration or both?

Does Fr. Dominic Bourmaud believe a valid Pope can promulgate a council that is both erroneous and doctrinally certain at the same time? What does he think of a Pope who would approve of doubtful and invalid Sacraments and an "incentive to impiety" Mass? After 1968, does he not believe encyclicals (a monstrous number written since 1968) are authoritative and mostly infallible? What about the code of canon law? Can a valid Pope promulgate cannon law that contains heresy? Can he "canonize" "saints" whom by imitating will guide us to Hell? These are most curious questions I would like for him to answer so we can be set strait on this most confusing [to some] issue.


Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: On "Schism"
Thanks John for your help; I posted the response, and tradical will probably reply shortly.
God Bless,
Mike

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.