It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:06 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 
 Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., generally regarded as the greatest theologian of the twentieth century, on the question of Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances.

"The legitimate election of a pontiff today depends de facto on pontifical law alone, as is easily demonstrated by the obvious argument that the law regulating the election was promulgated by the supreme pontiffs. Therefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed. 'For the pope ordains those things which relate to the election and changes and restricts the manner of the election in such a way that any other manner would be invalid. In the Church, however, or in a council, this power does not reside in the absence of a pope, whence it arises that even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the pope so that, for instance, true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election or so that one who had been elected by fewer than two thirds of the cardinals might be pope. But, on the other hand, the pope is perfectly capable of ordaining this..., since it belongs to the same person to abolish who can authoritatively impose in all matters of positive law'. (Cajetan, Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13.) And therefore, if, for example, the See had chanced to fall vacant during the Vatican Council, a legitimate election could not have been conducted by the Fathers of the Council, but only by the usual electors, as was even expressly laid down in a special bull by Pius IX.

"There can, therefore, be only a hypothetical question, namely whether any authority besides the pontifical authority might in any circumstances be able to assign the conditions of an election. In this matter, indeed, no doubt is raised concerning the authority of an oecumenical council which cannot be distinguished from pontifical power, since it is of the nature of oecumenical decrees that they are confirmed by the pontiff. Hence there is matter for doubt only in the case of some lower authority. But in all such cases the conclusion must be negative, since the primacy, for himself and his successors, was granted to Peter alone, and to him alone, therefore, i.e. to the supreme pontiff alone, does it belong to determine the mode of transmission of the power which is to be passed on and, consequently, the mode of the election by which this transmission takes place.

"Any law, moreover, related to the order of the universal Church, exceeds by its very nature the scope of any power less than the supreme power. But the election of the supreme bishop pertains without doubt to the order of the universal Church. It is, therefore, reserved, by its very nature to the determination of him to whom the care of the entire community was committed by Christ. And indeed it is incontrovertible that these conclusions are valid in normal circumstances. Let us now investigate, nevertheless, how the law would apply if perchance an extraordinary situation were to arise in which it was necessary to proceed to the election of a pontiff while it was no longer possible to comply with the conditions determined by previous pontifical law; as some think was the case at the time of the Great Schism in the election of Martin V.

"Well, once we grant the occurrence of such circumstances, it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election would devolve upon a general council. For the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack. 'In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God. And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the pope do not exist' (Cajetan, ibidem). This, I say, is understood without difficulty if the occurrence of the case be admitted. But whether, in fact the case has ever occurred is a completely different question. For indeed it is now held as more or less certain among learned men that the election of Martin V was not done on the private authority of the Council of Constance, but by faculties expressly granted by the legitimate Pontiff Gregory XII before he had renounced the papacy, so that Cardinal Franzelin correctly and appropriately says: that there is 'reason for us with humble praise to wonder at the providence of Christ the King, the spouse and head of the Church, by which He calmed those huge crowds of men driven and sustained by covetousness and ignorance, with all laws being observed to the letter; most clearly demonstrating that the indefectibility of the rock upon which He built His Church, so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her, is supported not by human effort, but by the divine fidelity in promises and omnipotence in government' (Franzelin loc. cit.)." (Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, translated by John S. Daly.)

Yours in Christ our Risen King,
John Lane.


Sat May 20, 2006 11:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
catholiccato wrote:
The current legislation on Papal elections allows for those who have incurred canonical censures to be elected Pope (Pius XII, Paul VI).

The Civilita article was obviously written before the law changed.

Pius XII and Paul VI wanted to ensure that Catholics would not be in a position to doubt the validity of a Papal election, as they knew the kind of chaos the SV thesis brings in its train.

The Popes have the right the change laws like this--as everybody probably knows, there have been many different methods employed of electing Popes etc etc.


This is from angelqueen, where the moderator banned me and then permitted "sedevacantism" to be discussed freely without anybody being able to respond sufficiently.

This particular individual errs in failing to follow Bellarmine and the rest, who explain that it is not by virtue of human law that a heretic cannot be pope, but rather it is a matter of divine law. Thus he implicitly thinks that Pius XII's rules for conclaves operate to enable a non-Catholic (i.e. a public heretic) to become pope, which is outrageous.

Pius XII was only dealing with ecclesiastical penalties, not divine obstacles. The Code also says that a madman cannot hold an office in the Church. Does Catholiccato also think that Pius XII's rules removed this disability from madmen so that a certified nutter could become pope? Or a woman? Pope Joan Paul anybody? :D

As for chaos, well, look around, Cato. If this isn't chaos, nothing is.

Yours in Christ our Risen King,
John Lane.


Last edited by John Lane on Sun May 21, 2006 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 59
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
catholiccato wrote:
The current legislation on Papal elections allows for those who have incurred canonical censures to be elected Pope (Pius XII, Paul VI).

The Civilita article was obviously written before the law changed.

Pius XII and Paul VI wanted to ensure that Catholics would not be in a position to doubt the validity of a Papal election, as they knew the kind of chaos the SV thesis brings in its train.

The Popes have the right the change laws like this--as everybody probably knows, there have been many different methods employed of electing Popes etc etc.


:arrow: Dear Friends in Christ, Pax et Bonum.

I herebelow, with permission, paste John Lane's reply to my own private inquiry a few days ago which has bearing on this very subject and helps clear much confusion, I think:

"A papal bull is a document by which a pope promulgates a law or some other weighty proclamation. Insofar as the contents are divine law, they are irreformable. However, insofar as they are merely ecclesiastical law, they are able to be altered by future popes if they see fit. Consequently it is quite reasonable to speak of a bull being "abrogated."

"In the case of Cum ex apostolatus we have penal provisions (excommunications etc.) which were globally abrogated by the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917. Thus, any penalty not included in the Code is no longer in force. However, some of what is in Cum ex apostolatus is divine law - including the key provision that a public heretic cannot hold an office in the Church. We know that this is divine law because St. Robert Bellarmine tells us that it is, and many other theologians and canonists teach the same thing. And, if that were not sufficient, the Code included this particular provision in canon 188,4, so that even if it were not divine law we can be confident that it is still part of ecclesiastical law.

"Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was indeed a solid theologian and one of the best of the last century - but he was certainly outshone Cardinal Billot, who is universally regarded as the greatest theologian of the past one hundred years, and Billot held and taught the doctrine of Bellarmine. Likewise, the greatest canonical commentary of our era is Wernz-Vidal, and it teaches the same doctrine. In fact, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is in the minority and there is no reason to follow him.

". . . If he (Ratzinger) was peacefully accepted by the whole Church, we should have certain proof of his claim - but in fact he has been accepted only with violence - that is, only as a cardboard-cutout, as Fr. Cekada says so well, not in any way as a true successor of St. Peter having immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church. The very men who argue for his validity most passionately would not dream of obeying him! That is not 'peaceful acceptance.'. . .

"It is true that the Holy Office practiced the greatest procedural fairness and reticence in judging anybody definitively a heretic - as a rule. But even if there were no exceptions for notorious cases - which there were - let this suffice for all such arguments: We cannot accept the claims of Paul VI and his successors for dogmatic reasons, so that even if we prescind entirely from the question of public heresy, we are no closer to thinking of them as popes. These dogmatic reasons include the truth that Holy Mother Church cannot give evil rites, evil laws, and erroneous doctrines, and yet the V2 church has done all three. The hypothesis that these men have not really been popes is thus a proposed solution - an end - not a starting point. For this reason it is true to say that the non-sede position is in fact a dead-end, for it dead-ends the Church herself. It effectively accuses the Church of failing. Which is impossible.

"Thank you for your good wishes. Remember these are difficult matters and not all will see them clearly, so that we must keep uppermost in our minds that charity covereth a multitude of sins.
Yours in Christ our Risen King,
John Lane."

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sun May 21, 2006 2:27 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:18 pm
Posts: 12
Location: London, England
New post special conclaves
Mr David Bawden's people have told me they'd do a simple webpage about why Mr Bawden claims to be pope. I wonder if they are familiar with Cardinal Billot's work.


Mon May 22, 2006 11:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 39
New post 
Hi,

I have a question regarding the Cardinal's reasoning on this.

Cardinal Billot makes the point that ecclesiastical laws governing papal elections depend "on pontifical law alone", and that it "remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed". But he seems to contradict this statement in the very next few paragraphs.

He goes on to investigate "how the law would apply if perchance an extraordinary situation were to arise in which it was necessary to proceed to the election of a pontiff while it was no longer possible to comply with". So, he will investigate how the law applies in a case where pontifical law can no longer be followed. However, did he not just say that such laws have to be followed "until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself", and that "any other manner would be invalid" (Cajetan)? Anyway, Card. Billot says "it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election would devolve upon a general council". But did he just not quote Card. Cajetan saying "in the Church, however, or in a council, this power does not reside in the absence of a pope, whence it arises that even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the pope"? This is ironic, given Card. Cajetan (together with John of St. Thomas and Fr. Reginald Lagrange) held that a manifestly heretical Pope will need to be disposed by a general council. And sedevacantist, in answer to this, are quick to point out that a general council cannot be convoked without a Pope. Why doesn’t the same apply in this case?

Cardinal Billot basis this exception to the pontifical law on the fact that "the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack". So, in fact, it no longer depends on "pontifical law alone" to elect a Pontiff, but the natural law as well?

It would be helpful if someone here clarified these apparent contradictions.

Thanks.
Miguel.


Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post 
Miguel Oren wrote:
Cardinal Billot makes the point that ecclesiastical laws governing papal elections depend "on pontifical law alone", and that it "remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed". But he seems to contradict this statement in the very next few paragraphs.


Dear Mr. Oren,

This demonstrates the value in having our own forum where things can be considered maturely.

There are two questions in view here. 1. The question of who may change the law. 2. The question of the radical power of the Church to provide herself with a visible head.

In relation to the first question, the answer is that the pope alone has this power and therefore the law may never be altered when there is no pope.

In relation to the second question, Cardinal Billot effectively points out that the problem ought not to arise, but if it did, then it is undoubted that the Church, as a perfect society, must always have the power to provide herself with a visible head, so that whatever in fact happens, there will be a solution. The alternative is that the Church fails, which is impossible.

It may assist to see that Billot is addressing this after everybody else has addressed it, and he is therefore constructing his arguments to ensure clarity on the first point particularly, which may have been unintentionally obscured by other writers who have stated that the power to elect a pope devolves upon an imperfect general council without also emphasising that such a council could not change the law but only except itself from the law. There is a huge difference. I may omit to assist at Holy Mass on a Sunday for good reasons, but I may not alter the law in relation to the Sunday obligation.

Finally, Cardinal Cajetan's sentence as follows may appear to be ambiguous, "For the pope ordains those things which relate to the election and changes and restricts the manner of the election in such a way that any other manner would be invalid." All that he means is that the law made by the pope is an invalidating law, not just an ordinary precept. He does not mean to argue that if there were no cardinals there would no longer be the possibility of a true pope and I understand that he admits the opposite explicitly, but I may be mistaken on that.

In any case I will post in another text, from Bellarmine, who is the highest non-papal authority on questions concerning the nature and rights of the Holy See, in a separate post.


Mon May 22, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Bellarmine's Controversies, [i]De clericis[/, bk. I, ch. 10.
Bellarmine's Controversies, De clericis, bk. I, ch. 10. (Translation by James Larrabee)

Chapter 10. Eighth Proposition.

If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.

In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae. Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy. But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.

First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.

Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance. [This is the entire text of chap. 10.]

[Comments which follow by James Larrabee]

It should be noted that in this book, St. Robert treats first of the election of bishops, refuting the Protestant theory of popular election (revived by modern liberal "Catholics") at considerable length (chap. 7). He then deals in detail with the election of the Supreme Pontiff (chap. 9). The proposition at the head of chapter 7 reads: "The right of electing the Supreme Pontiff, and the other Pastors and Ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by divine right. But if, at any time, the people had any power in this matter, that was entirely from the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs."

Another point to keep in mind in this context is that the neighboring bishops to the see of Rome are actually the Cardinal Bishops, the bishops of the suburbicarian sees. These have been associated in the government of the Church by the Popes from the earliest times. On this Bellarmine says in chap. 9 (in which he is concerned to show that the constituted method of papal election by the Cardinals, while not of divine law, is the best and should be retained): "The second manner [of electing a Bishop] was, that all the Bishops of the same province, or the majority of them, should elect the Bishop, after, however, requesting the testimony and consent of the Clergy and people of the place to which the Bishop is being given: and in the same manner were elected Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Supreme Pontiff himself, namely by the neighboring or provincial Bishops. And this was the most ancient manner ..." Further down he says: "The second manner is found in this form [of papal election, that is, election by the Cardinals], insofar as the principle element in it is concerned; for the neighboring Bishops now elect as they then elected, namely the six Cardinal Bishops."


Mon May 22, 2006 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 39
New post 
John,

In regard to the quote made by Cajetan, I am not sure what you meant by "all that he means is that the law made by the pope is an invalidating law"... Cajetan says that one cannot change the law so that (among other things) "true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election" – but isn't this exactly the case when the church has to resort to non-cardinal papal electors for survival? In such a case the law of the church, which forbids any non-Cardinal electors from participating (and I would presume the law considers any non-Cardinal electors' votes as invalid, as well), would be rescinded due to circumstance, and this without the explicit approval of the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence I do not see how Cardinals Billot and Cajetan can make such unequivocal statements like the following: "the legitimate election of a pontiff today depends de facto on pontifical law alone"; "therefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it remains in force"; "there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed"; "even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the pope so that, for instance, true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election", and, "to the supreme pontiff alone, does it belong to determine the mode of transmission of the power which is to be passed on and, consequently, the mode of the election by which this transmission takes place".

Now the distinction of changing a law and exempting oneself from the law is understood. But I doubt --based on the words of the theologians above-- whether it can be applied in the situation we're discussing.

Sunday obligation, for example, is a precept that the church gives some explicit exceptions to; but even then it only excuses one from sin – meaning, it would not change the objective situation that one, in fact, has not fulfilled their Sunday obligation.

The laws governing papal elections are laws that the legislators themselves have made clear and precise mandates to – and nowhere am I aware of is there any instruction on how to elect a pope if the cardinals are impeded from doing so.

I have heard, though, that non-cardinal papal elections would possibly come under epikia (sp?). If that were true, it would go back to the question of how this can be reconciled with the statements made by the two theologians above. The implication here is that the law can change temporarily: where the law promulgated by a Pope forbids and invalidates the votes of non-cardinal electors, the same law would allow non-cardinal electors as licit and valid for a situation it does not foresee – this, emphasis added, without the sanction of a Pope - from whom alone such power to change church laws can reside.


Tue May 23, 2006 7:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post 
Miguel,

I understand that you don't see how Cajetan can have made those statements and yet also admit that a no-cardinal election could be valid, but in fact he did. That is why I bolded this, from Bellarmine, "Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan..."

In sum, you have not yet understood this matter. You can't argue against a fact. :)

Miguel Oren wrote:
Sunday obligation, for example, is a precept that the church gives some explicit exceptions to; but even then it only excuses one from sin – meaning, it would not change the objective situation that one, in fact, has not fulfilled their Sunday obligation.


Granted, my analogy was not a good one.

Miguel Oren wrote:
I have heard, though, that non-cardinal papal elections would possibly come under epikia (sp?). If that were true, it would go back to the question of how this can be reconciled with the statements made by the two theologians above. The implication here is that the law can change temporarily: where the law promulgated by a Pope forbids and invalidates the votes of non-cardinal electors, the same law would allow non-cardinal electors as licit and valid for a situation it does not foresee – this, emphasis added, without the sanction of a Pope - from whom alone such power to change church laws can reside.


Yes, it would be an application of epikeia, and no, that does not imply a change of law, even temporarily. It implies the judgement that the law does not bind in the circumstances because the lawgiver, not foreseeing the circumstances, did not intend it to bind in these circumstances. Which is really what Cajetan and Co. are saying.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Tue May 23, 2006 8:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 39
New post 
John,

John Lane wrote:
I understand that you don't see how Cajetan can have made those statements and yet also admit that a no-cardinal election could be valid, but in fact he did.


I am not arguing against the fact that Cardinals Billot and Cajetan admitted the possibility of non-cardinal electors in extraordinary circumstances. What I am trying to do is find out how this admission can be reconciled with their other words.

Here is a part of Billots' words again: "herefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it [the law stating that only cardinals can elect a new pope] remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed".

Try to follow my train of thought here, and point out to me where it goes wrong:

If a law remains in force, it follows that it must be binding and in effect. If the law governing papal elections is in force, it also follows that admitting non-cardinal electors will be against this law. So if circumstances dictate under epikeia that non-cardinals may participate in papal elections, it follows that the law no longer remains in force -- because a person or a group of people have presumed that the law-giver would not have wished the law to remain in force, had he known of the circumstance. And therefore I do not see how it can be said in all truth that "until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself...it remains in force...even when the see is vacant".

I also found this definition of epikeia from the New Catholic Dictionary (1910):

"An indulgent and benign interpretation of law, which regards a law as not applying in a particular case because of circumstances unforeseen by the lawmaker. The lawmaker cannot foresee all possible cases that may come under the law, and it is therefore reasonably presumed that were the present circumstances known to the legislator he would permit the act, e.g., a mother presumes that she may miss Mass on Sunday when there is no one present to care for her baby. Epikeia is not permitted, however, no matter how grave the inconvenience, if violation of the law would render an act null and void, e.g., to presume that marriage may be contracted because of grave inconvenience in spite of an existing diriment impediment. " (Source).

If this is truly the case, how can epikeia apply to having non-cardinals participate in papal election, when a non-cardinal's vote is considered null and void under ecclesiastical law?


Wed May 24, 2006 9:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post 
Miguel Oren wrote:
I am not arguing against the fact that Cardinals Billot and Cajetan admitted the possibility of non-cardinal electors in extraordinary circumstances. What I am trying to do is find out how this admission can be reconciled with their other words.


Dear Mr. Oren,

Their position is that the circumstance will never arise, so that there will not be any need to include non-cardinals in an election and therefore no lawful or valid reason to do so. But, if the circumstance did arise, then it is divine law that the Church can always provide herself with a visible head, etc.

In other words, if the impossible were to occur, then all bets are off.

In relation to epikeia, yes, one may not interpret that an invalidating law does not apply. But perhaps one may presume the consent of the authority from whom one would ordinarily ask it if he were available. I will check.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu May 25, 2006 1:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post 
A friend has just asked me off-list about this question and I am posting here what I replied to him. But as this is my first post I should first introduce myself, since, like everyone else, I only read the rule about using one's real name after I had already selected a pseudo. I will sign with my real name below and for those who don't know me I am an Englishman living in France, father of six, soon to be seven, children, a sedevacantist since 1983 and a translator (French and Latin) by profession.

Here now is how I understand this issue of Church law, natural law and divine law in the case of the extinction of all designated electors (a hypothesis which all agree is not contrary to any known divine promise):

I should reply, I think, that it is impossible for the Church by a positive disposition of human law to frustrate her own divine constitution. Hence any positive law of the Church is understood as qualified by the demands of her divine constitution in case of absolute conflict such as might supervene.

If the Church declares, by a law ("L") that only persons in category A can validly perform a certain act ("Z") and the members of category A all cease to exist, we must first distinguish whether the Church's law L was restricting a power which persons outside category A would normally possess in the absence of this limitation or whether she was giving a power which in the absence of her law L no one would normally have. We must also consider whether divine law or her divine constitution play a relevant part.

For instance, if a law of the Church delegates to certain persons the power to dispense from vows and those persons cease to exist, the result is that no one can now dispense from vows. This may appear inconvenient, but only because we are used to having people who can dispense from vows in some cases. In fact God might have made His Church in all other respects the same but without the power to dispense from vows (promises made to Him) and no one would have thought the omission surprising.

Somewhat differently, if the Church declares that only persons elected by the other Carmelites become superiors of the Carmelites, but then there is a plague and all Carmelites die except one who is not a superior, canon law itself makes it clear that all the powers and privileges of Carmelites devolve upon the one survivor...

The government of the Church herself, on the other hand, depends upon divine mission passing down from the apostles. If per impossibile the mission dried up altogether, it could not devolve upon others to whom it had not been transmitted.

But the power to elect the supreme head of the Church is a curious case. It is a power in the Church by divine origin and as a result of divine mission, of which the Church can designate the channel, but which she cannot limit so absolutely as to frustrate her own divine constitution. As long as a validly named Catholic cardinal survives, no election by another could be valid, but when the designated source dries up (the contrary is not guaranteed because the designation of the electors is not divine) the power can and must devolve in accordance with the divine constitution of the Church where there is no positive law to decide.

In addition to epikeia, theologians also note the case of automatic cessation of a law when it is incapable of securing its end. I suspect that Billot meant that if all cardinals vanished, the law of the Church restricting valid elections to them would remain "on the books" but would be in temporary abeyance as far as any binding force was concerned. The natural law and the Church's divine constitution would step in and enable true representataives of the Roman Church to elect validly.

BTW, in reply to another question that was asked by Paul Danon, yes the Billot quote was made available in a detailed response to the Bawden fiasco back in 1990.

John Daly


Mon May 29, 2006 3:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post 
I am wondering what the people on this forum think about holding an extraordinary papal election? What would the proper procedure be. A huge amount of preperation among the traditional bishops would have to take place and they would need to ensure that the faithful and independent priests knew what was happening. What are peoples thoughts on this?

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
Dylan,

Given the fracturing and differences among the Traditional Catholics / Bishops, I do not see how they would get together to hold an "extraordinary papal election" since some would probably argue if it was needed or even valid.


Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

In light of the excellent citations and input provided by John Lane and John Daly on this subject, is it the conclusion that given God's good time, at some point, all the remaining Bishops of the Church can elect the next pope?

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
Dylan,
At this point in time, it will be by Divine intervention that this confusion with the Papacy becomes straightened out. If any of you saw the video "Underground Church Of Pope Pius XII" narriated by Mary Ellen Eckelberg(from catholiccounterpoint.com), she states that Pius XII knew very well the situation of traitors working around him. One traitor was ArchBishop Montini who Pius sent off to milano without a Cardinal's hat. According to Eckelberg, Pope Pius made 12 Cardinal "In Pectori" (secretly)they were young trustworthy men who were to remain as unknown Cardinals, but were to Consecrate Bishops for the future when the true Roman Catholic Church would be driven underground.

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


Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 35
New post If Pope Pius XII knew...
If it is true - and I have no idea whether it is - that Pius XII suspected what might happen to the Church after his death, then it makes it *all the more* remarkable that in his legislation on papal elections he does *not* say anything about the use of epikeia to elect a pope, e.g. via the remaining bishops, but makes it quite clear, in black and white, what the rules are. That is the law for all Catholics.


Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post 
Do you reject the teaching of Cardinal Billot and the other authorities on this topic, Regnum?

I mean the teaching that positive ecclesiastical law designating papal electors undergoes automatic cessation if all designated electors cease to be, since the Church by her divine constitution cannot be without a means of giving herself a head.

JD


Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 35
New post Papal elections
No, I do not reject whatever the Catholic position is, but I have not studied it either. I just made an observation concerning Pius XII and what the law is. That's all.

Regnum


Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
In light of the excellent citations and input provided by John Lane and John Daly on this subject, is it the conclusion that given God's good time, at some point, all the remaining Bishops of the Church can elect the next pope?


We are assuming, I think, jurisdictional bishops, not just valid bishops; else, how will the new pope have apostolicity. As you can see from other threads, I'm concerned about the jurisdictional aspect of our current situation. If the new rite of consecration is considered invalid by sedes, and some sede clergy disavow the "bishop-in-the-woods" idea; who will be the electors for the pope. If this election happens within a relatively short time, I perceive no problem, as we still have jurisdictional bishops around; but, at some point, in the not too distant future, this becomes impossible. Certainly, God will provide.

Also, I've heard it said by a sede priest that perhaps Pope Pius XII gave an indult to some bishops in China or the then Soviet Union that would have permitted them to consecrate bishops with jurisdiction without papal intervention. Any thoughts on this idea?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Hello Teresa !

Quote:
Also, I've heard it said by a sede priest that perhaps Pope Pius XII gave an indult to some bishops in China or the then Soviet Union that would have permitted them to consecrate bishops with jurisdiction without papal intervention. Any thoughts on this idea?


I have been told ( but have not check this) Pope Pius XII gave Bishop Thuc such an indult to consecrate Bishops. Regarding jurisdiction, at some point, this must be supplied by Jesus Christ. Kind of like, " what if , ALL the bishops had been rounded up and shot", would the Church be finished, i.e. gates of hell prevailed ?

We do know by Faith, that there always be at least one bishop with jurisdiction. Recall Bishop Lazo? He recanted his aligance with the novus ordo, and retruned to Tradition. Did he until his death have jurisdiction? As you mentioned, China and Russia are also interesting places to look.

Question to John Lane and John Daly- When the Russian Orthodox Bishop Yurchik converted to the Catholic Faith... did that also bring jurisdiction to his See?

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:25 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post 
Vince,

This subject of episcopal jurisdiction is very big, very difficult and very serious and I honestly don't think I want to buy into it and all its ramifications on this forum at the present time.

But I think I should say that I don't believe in this concept of episcopal jurisdiction supplied by Christ to whoever has valid episcopal orders and professes the Catholic Faith in time of crisis. Nor do I believe that the traditional emergency bishops have any more power than I have to elect a pope - and that is none at all.

Nor do I believe that it is possible for all validly named Catholic bishops to cease to exist - and that point is taken to be dogmatic by all theologians I am aware of who advert to it.

But where there is a surviving Catholic bishop duly named I do not know, nor does the Catholic faith require that I should know. The prophet Elias believed he was the last surviving worshipper of the true God, but God said to him: "I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal."

Once we get firmly into our heads that we do not have to save the Church, we have to be saved by the Church, the mystery ceases to perturb. This crisis will end, and God will end it, by men who will either be regularly commissioned by His Church or else will do miracles to bear witness to their extraordinary mission.

Popes sometimes gave bishops power to transmit not only episcopal orders but also the apostolic mandate to candidates of their choice in persecuted lands, and that may be part of the solution. But we have no details. We don't know what powers were given to whom in China though it seems very probable that some extraordinary powers were granted to someone for episcopal consecrations. It seems highly improbable that the unspecified special power delegated to Archbishop Thuc by Pope Pius XI (not XII) related to consecrating bishops at any time and in any place. He certainly made no such claim. But someone somewhere may still possess such powers derived from a true pope.

We are amid a crisis and a mystery and God has not asked us to solve the mystery. He asks us to keep the faith. May He grant us all grace to do so.

John


Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear John Daly,

Many thanks, your response was clear, concise and to the point. I would say you touched the subject with a needle. :lol:

Quote:
Once we get firmly into our heads that we do not have to save the Church, we have to be saved by the Church, the mystery ceases to perturb. This crisis will end, and God will end it, by men who will either be regularly commissioned by His Church or else will do miracles to bear witness to their extraordinary mission.


The above comment me thinks is the most important, and really puts this in its clear perspective ( for me). This is a "keeper" for when I get a little down regarding these sad times we find ourselves.

Thanks !

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:29 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post 
And again from Angelqueen. "Catholiccato" claims he hasn't been answered. Of course, he can't be, on Angelqueen. Honest debate anybody? Truth? No?

catholiccato wrote:
Dear Nervousordo,

Very good point!

Because if we hadn't had valid popes since the council, we wouldn't have even one valid cardinal, which means we couldn't elect a valid new pope!

The Church would no longer be the Church if the SV thesis is right, and what is more, it could NEVER again be the Church, as there would be no way of getting a new pope.

Our mess now is horrible but fixable--if the SV's were right, we would just be up the creek with no paddles ever available!

This is an issue which I have yet to see the luminaries of SV'ism (Fr. Cekada, John Lane etc) address. If someone has seen a SV author address this, please pm me with the link.


Perhaps somebody will be so kind as to send him the link to this thread. Of course, it would seem that he is already aware of it and chooses to ignore it, based on this comment from another of his posts: "Even the SV's admit this is a big problem. John Lane has a discussion of this in his FAQ's which shows it is a BIG DEAL even for an SV."

Who knows? But it certainly looks like "sedevacantism" is a subject only safely discussed when "sedevacantists" are excluded. Otherwise we spoil those easy "victories." As Vin Lewis discovered. :)

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
I am wondering if this discussion might be continued, but redirected a bit towards the question of whether or not a true Pope could appoint his successor?

It appears to me that Cardinal Billot's statement confirms this possibility, since only the Pope can order the necessary means that will assure his legitimate successor.

There certainly is precedent in Church history for such Papal action: the last recorded instance of such an occurrence was in about 530 when Pope Felix IV appointed Boniface II as his successor.

There were also such things done prior to 530. However, my understanding of why this procedure was abondoned is because it could too easily involve nepotism, or the appearance of it.

Comments, please?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Hi Ken,

Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
I am wondering if this discussion might be continued, but redirected a bit towards the question of whether or not a true Pope could appoint his successor?

It appears to me that Cardinal Billot's statement confirms this possibility, since only the Pope can order the necessary means that will assure his legitimate successor.

There certainly is precedent in Church history for such Papal action: the last recorded instance of such an occurrence was in about 530 when Pope Felix IV appointed Boniface II as his successor.

There were also such things done prior to 530. However, my understanding of why this procedure was abondoned is because it could too easily involve nepotism, or the appearance of it.

Comments, please?


Let us see if this may help...

Ayrinhac, "Constitution of the Church, lib II, n.10.

"Some canonists admit that the Pope can validly, and even lawfully for very serious reasons, designate his successor, and historians find an example of this in the apointment of Boniface II by his predecessor Felix IV (d. 530)." And then he cites Wernz, Capello, S. Many, Heffele-Leclercq in favor of this opinion, and Cavagnis and Peries against it.

Abbo-Hannan vol. 1 on canon 219.

"e) A question long agitated among canonists and theologians is whether the R. Pontiff has the power to designate his sucessor. Many deny the existence of such power; others admit its existence without limitation; while still others mantain that its use is restricted to particular and extrordinary cases. Historically it is clear that Felix IV (526-530) designated his sucessor in the person of Bonoface II (530-2) (footonote: Liber pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, 2 vol. Paris, 1886/92) I, 282). Moreover, it is also clear that the authority of the Roman P. is full and supreme and that there is no positive prohibition of this exercise of it in any prohibition of the divine law.

Wernz-Vidal Vol 2, num 405, III.

"The designation, in the strict sense of the term, of the person in the See of Peter, and not a mere recomendation, made by the Roman P. according to the most probable opinion (probabiliorem sententiam) at least in the case of a real and extraordinary necessity of the Church is valid and licit.
Because the supreme and full power of the Roman P. is not restricted neither ex natura rei (in itself) nor due to an special divine command, just to the legislation regarding the nomination of the sucessor. Ergo the denial of the extention of the power of the Roman P. to designate his sucessor is unfounded....
Neither the Holy Scriptures nor the tradition can give some arguments in order to demonstrate that there is a divine positive law limitating this power. Nowhere Christ forbided his Vicar to designate his sucessor. This argument nowadays is stronger because the adversaries can hardly deny Felix IV (526-530) apointed, in strict sense, as his sucessor to Boniface II (footnote: this document was founded in 1883 in the library of Capituli Novariensi) and he didn´t revoked this designation before his death. Besides Boniface II himself elected his sucessor...

Besides i founded further canonists and theologians in favor of this thesis such as Salvarri, A Lobo, De Guibert, Capello, Muncunill.
Lercher just comment this thesis as something disputed and both he and Salaverri quote Straub but they don´t say if this author is against it or not (sadly i don´t have that book).

My personal opinion is very much like that of Wernz, that is:
Major: the Pope has the supreme and full Power in the Church
Minor: supreme and full power includes the apointment of his succesor
Ergo.

Minor is proved because it does not exist any prohibition by divine law regarding the election of his sucessor and this is very much confirmed by history, where we see at least one Pope who did that, and if he did it that means he is able to do it. Who is able to contradict a Pope who takes that decission?.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Fri May 02, 2008 7:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
This is very interesting, but I do not see how it applies to our current situation, unless it could be proved that Pope Pius XII secretly chose his successor. I do know some gentlemen that firmly believe that Pius XII secretly appointed bishops, but this would be a major leap.

Even if such a view could be proven, I am still not sure of whether such an act would override the acclamation of the Roman Clergy and the world's bishops in recognizing John XXIII.

But, without evidence of such an action on the part of Pius XII, I am not sure that such an avenue of thought is worth exploring.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat May 03, 2008 5:02 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Quote:
Mike wrote:
This is very interesting, but I do not see how it applies to our current situation, unless it could be proved that Pope Pius XII secretly chose his successor. I do know some gentlemen that firmly believe that Pius XII secretly appointed bishops, but this would be a major leap.

Even if such a view could be proven, I am still not sure of whether such an act would override the acclamation of the Roman Clergy and the world's bishops in recognizing John XXIII.

But, without evidence of such an action on the part of Pius XII, I am not sure that such an avenue of thought is worth exploring.


Dear Mike,
My intention was not to apply this case to Pius XII but rather i was just refering to this topic from a theoretical point of view.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sat May 03, 2008 9:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Dear Cristian,

I thank you for finding those quotes from the theologians. My comment was not directed towards your posting those quotes, but I was not sure of why Ken posed the question initially. I am not sure if he was getting at the idea that Pius XII may have secretly appointed a successor. While this may be possible, there is no evidence for it, and secondly, the world's bishops and the Roman clergy recognized John XXIII as pope, so there may be theological problems with this line of thought.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun May 04, 2008 12:32 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Pax Christi !

One thing that in my humble view needs to be acknowledged is that we laymen ( even the most educated laymen) in the Church, really do not seem to have a total grasp on the issue of " jurisdiction". We all make general statements, but really, who does know what role jurisdiction plays within the traditional Catholic clergy i.e Bishops? And for that matter how does have said jursidiction?

God does work in mysterious ways, and the gates of hell will not prevail. So even if our understanding is limited. God will provide us the means of electing a pope along with apostolic succession, if indeed that is mandatory for Christ’s Mystical Body.

Our quibbling will not defuse that fact.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun May 04, 2008 9:25 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Mike wrote:
Dear Cristian,

I thank you for finding those quotes from the theologians. My comment was not directed towards your posting those quotes, but I was not sure of why Ken posed the question initially. I am not sure if he was getting at the idea that Pius XII may have secretly appointed a successor.


I am not.

As a matter of fact, Pius XII WANTED to appoint Cardinal Siri as his successor, and discussed this with Siri, but Siri flatly told him that he much preferred to go through a regular election...the fool.

Also, Mike, the FACT that Pius XII consecrated a number of Bishops in camera is quite well known, and, in further fact, he had precedent as one of his immediate successors did the same thing, ordering Pacelli to consecrate one Bishop, who was a French priest, in this same manner for essentially the same purpose.

In fact, this last action became publicly known after this man, the Frenchman, came back out from behind the Iron Curtain, and eventually died peacefully in France. I have seen a photo of him in a news article describing him.

I believe there was an article about this in The Angelus, the SSPX magazine, quite some time ago.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun May 04, 2008 6:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Brookfield,Wis. --Naples, Fla
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Ken,

How can Pacelli have an "immediate successor" set a precedent for this?
Do you mean Pius XI advised him during his lifetime, meaning for Pacelli's
future papal reign? Or Benedict XV during his lifetime advised a young
Pacelli hoping for his future papal election?

Of course you meant "predecessor," but how do we know that that
"advice" is the avenue for changing Canon Law on elections?

Gratias


Sun May 04, 2008 9:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
KenGordon wrote:
As a matter of fact, Pius XII WANTED to appoint Cardinal Siri as his successor, and discussed this with Siri, but Siri flatly told him that he much preferred to go through a regular election...the fool.

Source, Ken?


KenGordon wrote:
Also, Mike, the FACT that Pius XII consecrated a number of Bishops in camera is quite well known, and, in further fact, he had precedent as one of his immediate successors did the same thing, ordering Pacelli to consecrate one Bishop, who was a French priest, in this same manner for essentially the same purpose.

Yes, I am aware that this is well known also, except that I've never seen a credible source for it. I'm not saying that there isn't one - merely that I have never seen it. What have you got? Anybody else?

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Sun May 04, 2008 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Vincent wrote:

Quote:
One thing that in my humble view needs to be acknowledged is that we laymen ( even the most educated laymen) in the Church, really do not seem to have a total grasp on the issue of " jurisdiction". We all make general statements, but really, who does know what role jurisdiction plays within the traditional Catholic clergy i.e Bishops? And for that matter how does have said jursidiction?

God does work in mysterious ways, and the gates of hell will not prevail. So even if our understanding is limited. God will provide us the means of electing a pope along with apostolic succession, if indeed that is mandatory for Christ’s Mystical Body.

Our quibbling will not defuse that fact.


Dear Vincent,

Although I would defer this to those who have studied this more in depth than myself, such as John Lane or John Daly, I will say that to the best of my knowledge it is impossible for a "traditional Catholic bishop" to have jurisdiction. The pope did not explicitly or implicitly call these men to the office of bishop. They are not authorized by the Church to engage in the functions of the office of a bishop. They have no territorial jurisdiction.

Regarding the question of "who has jurisdiction?" The answer to this according to my understanding of dogmatic theology is those members of the hierarchy who have been given their office by the Pope. Now, this goes without saying that these members of the hierarchy must not have defected from the faith.

So, based on the previous statements, I can say with certainty that those bishops who were appointed by Pope Pius XII, who have not defected from the Faith definately have jurisdiction. Are there any others? I am not sure of those appointed after Pope Pius XII, I think there is an argument made from the common error of the faithful, in regards to the bishops of John XXIII and the bishops appointed by Paul VI, until the new consecration rite was used. Also, we must consider the Eastern Rites, and those validly consecrated by their bishops, even until modern times. Can they have jurisdiction through the idea of common error, if they still have the faith, and are lawfully consecrated?

I would state that there is a definate here: those bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII surely have jurisdiction, but the others mentioned above I would leave to those who have studied this issue more than myself to answer.

I hope this helps.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon May 05, 2008 4:00 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Ken wrote:

Quote:
As a matter of fact, Pius XII WANTED to appoint Cardinal Siri as his successor, and discussed this with Siri, but Siri flatly told him that he much preferred to go through a regular election...the fool.

Also, Mike, the FACT that Pius XII consecrated a number of Bishops in camera is quite well known, and, in further fact, he had precedent as one of his immediate successors did the same thing, ordering Pacelli to consecrate one Bishop, who was a French priest, in this same manner for essentially the same purpose.

In fact, this last action became publicly known after this man, the Frenchman, came back out from behind the Iron Curtain, and eventually died peacefully in France. I have seen a photo of him in a news article describing him.

I believe there was an article about this in The Angelus, the SSPX magazine, quite some time ago.


Dear Ken,

Thank you for the clarification. I think it would be great if we could find out who these bishops were. I think it could possibly be very relevent in finding out who they are and which of them are still alive to this day.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon May 05, 2008 4:05 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Pax Christi !

Quote:
I would state that there is a definate here: those bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII surely have jurisdiction, but the others mentioned above I would leave to those who have studied this issue more than myself to answer.


Mike,

Thanks for the reply. I would say we do need a serious study done. As this crisis drags on, we are getting further away ( from a mathematical perspective ) of having a " bishop in the woods" consecrated by Pope Pius XII, or for that matter John XXIII.

If the traditional bishops are not " sent by the Church".. we will eventually have quite a theological issue to address. While we will always hold by faith " that at least one bishop, even though we do not need to know his name" will be left with jurisdiction. We do want a solid platform to leave for our children regarding this element of the Church.

John Daly if I recall correctly has stated that if the crisis continues much longer, we might have to reevaluate our understanding of the Dogma and Doctrines involved.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon May 05, 2008 6:15 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
As a matter of fact, Pius XII WANTED to appoint Cardinal Siri as his successor, and discussed this with Siri, but Siri flatly told him that he much preferred to go through a regular election...the fool.

Source, Ken?


At least one Italian newspaper. As I remember it, I read corroborating testimony in more than one place. When I have time (we are extremely busy now), I will post that information here.

John Lane wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
Also, Mike, the FACT that Pius XII consecrated a number of Bishops in camera is quite well known, and, in further fact, he had precedent as one of his immediate successors did the same thing, ordering Pacelli to consecrate one Bishop, who was a French priest, in this same manner for essentially the same purpose.

Yes, I am aware that this is well known also, except that I've never seen a credible source for it. I'm not saying that there isn't one - merely that I have never seen it. What have you got? Anybody else?


I KNOW I read something about this in The Angelus some time ago, but I do not know which issue, or even, exactly, when. I have really TERRIBLE memory for time-connected matters. I also remember reading it, complete with photos, from a secular source. When I think about it, I get this vague idea that it was Life magazine. Again, I will dig out the information as soon as I can.

As far as the names of those Bishops that Pius XII consecrated, I have no infomation on that. The only name I know of is the Frenchman that Pacelli consecrated at the order of (I believe) Pius XI.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon May 05, 2008 3:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
One thing we must keep carefully in mind here, IFF I understand this correctly: a Bishop consecrated in camera loses all jurisdiction, and, essentially, is no longer a Bishop, as soon as his consecrator dies. The reason being that he has no proof for his consecration.

Is this not correct?

John or John?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon May 05, 2008 3:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 543
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Quote:
KenGordon wrote:
One thing we must keep carefully in mind here, IFF I understand this correctly: a Bishop consecrated in camera loses all jurisdiction, and, essentially, is no longer a Bishop, as soon as his consecrator dies. The reason being that he has no proof for his consecration.

Is this not correct?


Ken,
Excuse me the ignorance... but what is a Bishop in camera?, something like Cardinal in pectore? Whence you take this, from canon law?
What do you mean by "essentially, is not longer Bishop"?, you mean that he has no jurisdiction or something else?

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Mon May 05, 2008 3:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
KenGordon wrote:
One thing we must keep carefully in mind here, IFF I understand this correctly: a Bishop consecrated in camera loses all jurisdiction, and, essentially, is no longer a Bishop, as soon as his consecrator dies. The reason being that he has no proof for his consecration.

Is this not correct?


Ken,
Excuse me the ignorance...

Sir: You are far LESS ignorant than I, believe me!

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
but what is a Bishop in camera?, something like Cardinal in pectore?

Yes, as I understand it.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Whence you take this, from canon law?

I am quoting it from memory of what I once read. Perhaps I am misquoting, and it SHOULD be in pectore. I took it to mean "hidden"

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
What do you mean by "essentially, is not longer Bishop"?, you mean that he has no jurisdiction or something else?

As I understand it, he most certainly loses jurisdiction, but, again, as I understand it, he cannot act in any way as a Bishop, except, perhaps under very special circumstances. For all practical purposes, he is no longer a Bishop. However, I don't adequately understand all I know about this either. Please don't take me as any sort of authority.

As I said, you have far more knowledge about these matters than I.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon May 05, 2008 4:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Brookfield,Wis. --Naples, Fla
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
According to Webster's (copyrights 1951 through 1966) the word used is
"in petto" meaning, "1. literally, in the breast, in the heart. 2. secretly; not revealed; said of cardinals appointed by the Pope but not named in consistory."

Wasn't that nice of the secular dictionary published by the atheistic "World Publishing Company? I thought so.


Mon May 05, 2008 5:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 705
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
An excerpt from: "SECRET PRIESTS", by Joseph Dunn, which itself is from, "No Vipers in the Vatican".(The Columba Press, 1996), pp235-251.

Be aware that this man, Dunn, is not a Catholic and writes as though he isn't. I don't know what he is, but he is not to be totally trusted. Nonetheless, most of what he reports here can be verified by further searching.

"The beginnings of an underground church
The story began in 1948 with the communist take-over of Czechoslovakia. Soon after the putsch all the bishops and many of the priests were put into prison, and all religious houses and convents closed and their property confiscated by the state. Before being expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1949, the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gennaro Verolino, went around the country carrying permission from Pius XII for each bishop to choose and secretly consecrate a successor, so that if and when he was arrested or eliminated, there would be someone left to continue his work. This procedure wasn’t novel - it had been followed during the persecution in Mexico in the 1920s.
Two Jesuits in their late twenties, Jan Korec and Pavel Hnilica, were ordained bishops in 1951 according to this mandate. Korec became a bishop less than a year after his priestly ordination. Hnilica soon left Czechoslovakia, and spent the rest of his life promoting devotion to Our Lady of Fatima in Rome. (His story, by the way, reminds one of what became a problem in Ireland during the penal days. Some bishops ordained for Irish dioceses preferred the comforts of France, Spain, or Italy to the perilous life of a bishop in Ireland, and there are many letters in the Roman archives written to try to persuade or pressurise bishops to give up the soft option.) Bishop Jan Korec chose to remain throughout the difficult times and, after the collapse of communism, was appointed Bishop of Nitra in Slovakia in 1990, and one year later Cardinal.
Korec received instructions from Rome to follow the practice of having one active and one hidden bishop. In 1956 he secretly consecrated a fellow Jesuit, Dominic Kalata. Later on, secret ordinations to the episcopacy began to increase. Kalata consecrated Peter Dubovsky in 1961. Dubovsky consecrated Jan Blaha in 1967 in Augsburg, and Blaha consecrated Felix Maria Davidek, who is the pivotal figure in the present story. Blaha remained celibate, and his ordination to the episcopacy was declared valid by the Vatican. So there would seem no question of the validity of Davidek’s ordination.
Vaclav Vasko is a former director of the Catholic publishing house Zvon, in Prague. He gave us his personal impressions of Felix Davidek whom he knew well in prison:
I spent about four years in the prison at Mírov with Felix Davidek. He was one of the people who organised university studies in the prison. In fact one of the reasons he was put in prison was because he tried to organise a Catholic university in Moravia. When students were not allowed to complete their baccalaureate studies for religous or political reasons, Davidek developed and directed a sort of underground school, offering courses at university level with the help of professors thrown out of universities. I considered him a man of genius, a graduate of three or four faculties. He was an excellent musician and also a poet. He was in very poor health. He was an extremely ill-disciplined prisoner and forever in trouble. He was a deeply spiritual man - I had several conversations with him during our walks, and he meditated with me on the Way of the Cross and it was one of the most beautiful meditations I have ever known.
In 1960, when preparations for a general amnesty got under way, we were individually called to interrogations. Each of us had to write down a sort of curriculum vitae and our attitude to the regime. Felix Davidek typically, wrote down: ‘My name is Felix Davidek. I was born on such and such a day, was ordained priest on such and such a day. The communist state security arrested me on such and such a day. These facts, that I am a priest, that I was arrested and held in prison by the communist regime, have given me sufficient insight into present day reality. I therefore expect nothing of you and am ready to die any time. Signed, Felix Davidek.’ So of course he was not amnestied and stayed on in prison - God knows how long.
Later I met him once more in Brno. I ran into him and asked him whether it was true that he had been consecrated bishop. ‘Yes it is.’ ‘And is it true that you ordain women?’ ‘Nonsense, that’s slander, not true!’ Felix was rather undisciplined. I think he was a neurotic and I wonder whether that genius of his may not have contained an element of mental disorder. For instance, he totally disregarded canon law - he did not give a damn. He himself was totally convinced that what he was doing was absolutely correct of course none of us could have foreseen that communism would collapse - and he wished the church to be preserved and able to function even in the worst situations of persecution.
The underground church came to be under such men as Felix Davidek who were tortured and persecuted for their faith, and who believed that under communism, the church might have to face even worse in the future.
The officially tolerated, or’overground’ church
Having put the bishops and the active priests under lock and key, and closed most of the seminaries, the communists decided to pay salaries to co-operative clergy, provided they were prepared to toe the party line in public, and keep their ministry to the sacristy. They were forbidden, however, to engage in social work or teach the young about religion. Now many of these priests were genuinely convinced that co-operation with the government was right and necessary in order to provide Mass and the sacraments for believers. Some others probably found the life easy and comfortable apart from their sacramental duties there was little work to do, while the state paid them a salary. Others could see no viable alternative to going on the run, or to prison. But Bishop Davidek for one, deeply distrusted any priest who took the shilling from a communist government.
The Vatican seeks accommodation with the state
Rome doesn’t like underground churches because by definition they cannot be supervised properly, or controlled. So when it became quite clear after the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that communism wasn’t going to go away soon, the Vatican changed its policy and sought an accommodation with the government in Prague. Cardinal Casaroli was the brains and active agent in this ‘Ostpolitik,’ which led up to the public ordination of three bishops in Nitra in March 1973, and a fourth at Olomuc in Moravia the following day. The government also permitted the re-opening of two seminaries. Archbishop, later Cardinal Tomasek was the recognised leader of this overground church. Continuing discussions between the Vatican and the government meant that Vatican officials had oportunities to travel back and forth to Czechoslovakia, and keep in contact with Tomasek.
The two underground churches
After 1968 one really has to talk of two underground churches. As well as the group which formed around Bishop Davidek, there was another entirely celibate and perhaps less obsessively secretive underground church. This consisted of older priests who returned from prison and were never given licence to minister, as well as younger men who were ordained in East Germany or Poland but had no permission from the state to carry out their priestly duties, and still other priests who for one reason or another had fallen foul of the government, or who did not wish to work in a state sponsored church. Like all underground priests, these men worked at secular occupations and ministered secretly in houses, apartments and holiday camps, but, unlike the Davidek group, they always tried to keep in touch with the Vatican through Archbishop Tomasek.
Mission in the underground church
Fr Vaclav Maly, a celibate priest, described his work as a secret priest:
I was very involved in the work of the so-called underground church. I lectured, I organised biblical lessons, I instructed people in their religion. I prepared couples for weddings, I said holy Masses. All the things that were impossible to do in churches I did in somebody’s apartment. At the same time I had a manual job, and it helped me to live the normal life of an ordinary citizen. I had to get up in the morning to take the tram to work. Living like this helped me to understand better the thinking and behaviour of ordinary citizens. And it forced me to express my faith in a very civil way.
Fr Miloslav Fiala, now spokesman for the Czech Bishops’ Conference, remembers the difficult times with some nostalgia:
It was a very interesting and adventurous life. One had to be very cautious and on one’s guard against the police and the authorities while, on the other hand, meeting people whom one could instruct in the faith and who accepted it gratefully. This I considered a great school of life and we remember those times fondly. We had fun even at work. We were, of course, constantly followed. Police interrogations were, especially at certain periods, fairly frequent. I underwent about fifteen of varying degrees of intensity, but thank God I have never been subjected to physical violence except when I was in prison in Prague in 1949...
Bishop Davidek’s underground church
The other part of the underground church of which Bishop Davidek was the leader, generally distrusted the clergy of the officially tolerated church, who, they feared, had made a pact with the devil for which the church as a whole must ultimately suffer. Davidek seems to have believed that some day the Kremlin would move in and carry off all the clergy to Siberia, as had happened in Russia in the 1920s. The Soviet invasion in 1968 confirmed these premonitions Davidek felt that security had been too lax in the early days of the underground church, with the result that the state knew too much about what was going on. So after 1968, Davidek set about ordaining bishops and priests in total secrecy, not even retaining documentary evidence of ordination. It is thought that he ordained about 600 priests and maybe a dozen, or even perhaps as many as twenty, bishops. Some of the latter were married men.
In retrospect, one can see some logic in Davidek’s distrust of a church which could merit communist acquiescence. The Stasi files show that he was right in thinking that the seminary was infiltrated by the secret police. And records show that some official priests collaborated with the government to the extent of denouncing fellow clergy.
A married clergy
Davidek ordained perhaps 200 or more married men to the priesthood. This was done legally through a loophole he made, or perhaps we should say found, in canon law. Slovakia had a Greek Uniate church, that is a Greek-rite church united with Rome. The Greeks of course permit married men to be ordained, so Davidek ordained men under the Uniate Greek rite as bi-ritual, that is able to say Mass in either the Greek or the Roman rite. There was an ancient tradition in parts of Slovakia for priests to say Mass if necessary in another rite so that Uniates and Romans could help each other. But as there were no Uniates in Davidek’s diocese the priests were in practice working only in the Roman rite. Whatever the theological and canonical niceties, ordaining married men made a lot of common sense. The secret police expected priests to be celibate, so married men were much less likely to arouse attention However, ordaining married men as bishops was a different matter. This would appear to be against both the Greek and the Roman tradition, both of whom require all bishops to be celibate.
Women priests
Two of the married men ordained bishops by Davidek were Jan Krett and Fridolin Zahradnik. Zahradnik said publicly at a press conference that Krett, then deceased, had ordained at least two women. We were told off the record that Davidek himself had ordained women, and that one of these was Ludmila Javorová, who is also said to have been Davidek’s wife! She denied both of these statements at the time we made the programme. What she did not deny, but rather found a source of pride, is that she was for many years Davidek’s Vicar General, and played a big part herself in recruiting priests for the underground church. Having a young woman as Vicar General was perhaps a typical Davidek move to throw the secret police off the scent. Establishing the facts about the alleged ordination of women was complicated by the fact that the enemies of this underground church, which includes strange bedfellows, would like to use the issue of women’s ordination to discredit it. Some of the underground priests believe that the secret police, for instance, encouraged talk about the ordination of women to damage the underground church in the eyes of Rome. Others believe that elements in Rome itself also use this allegation to weaken the credibility of the underground church. However, the issue came into clearer focus in November 1995 when the Tablet reported that Ms Javorová changed her story. Bishop Davidek, she now said, had held a Synod in 1970 which discussed the issue of women’s ordination, decided in favour, and shortly after he ordained the first women, including Ms Javorová herself. She also claimed to know the names and addresses of other women who were ordained.
A summary of Davidek’s policies
Davidek died in a Brno hospital in August 1988 aged 67. When he first set up his underground church, there were no bishops in circulation that he felt he could trust, and contact with the Vatican was at least difficult. The church faced a very determined regime whose clear intention was to wipe out religion in a generation or two. His plan for survival had much merit in the early days of the persecution. But then things changed and he did not take the changes into account. After 1968, for instance, communications with Rome became much easier, yet Davidek continued to run his affairs as if contact with Rome was still impossible.
The problems that remained after the Velvet Revolution in 1989
There are many aspects of Bishop Davidek’s underground church which the authorities in Rome found difficult to accept.
Distaste in Rome for married clergy
Rome doesn’t like married priests in a Catholic community. They tend to weaken the case against a married clergy, and Rome is very anxious for a number of different reasons to hold the line firmly on celibacy. Converted Protestant ministers are a special case and merit exceptional treatment, and don’t therefore pose a threat. Neither Rome nor Constantinople tolerate married bishops.
Secret ordinations
Bishop Davidek was undoubtedly what is sometimes called ‘a loose canon’. Even at a time when he could have opened channels with Rome, he neglected to do so, and went on ordaining priests and even bishops in the 1970s without reference to Roman authorities. Some too have questioned his balance or even his sanity - and therefore by implication the validity of his ordinations. His defenders however get very angry when any doubts are raised in this area.
Absence of paperwork
Officialdom likes paperwork to establish happenings and facts. Davidek ordained bishops and priests without drawing up papers to enshrine his actions because he deeply distrusted the communist state, and knew that papers could all too easily fall into the hands of the Stasi, and lead to harassment and imprisonment. The absence of records means that there are more priests and possibly bishops in the community who have not yet come forward, but have decided to wait and see what Rome is going to do - if anything - before declaring their hand. If Rome does not offer them what they consider an honourable and satisfactory future within the structure, they may well intend to remain in their jobs and keep hidden the fact that they were ever ordained. One professional married man with a good job and a comfortable income, whom we met, admitted to being a priest in the former underground church. Off the record others told us he was in fact a bishop, although I have never seen this mentioned in print.
Working outside the parish struture
Priests in the underground church were not integrated into a structure like a parish. They were worker priests, doing a normal job, and in the course of that job - as also in their leisure time - they pursued a pastoral ministry. In practice this made them very similar to the worker priests in France - who were condemned by Rome in 1954. This suppression was reaffirmed in 1959, but revoked by Paul VI in 1965, moved perhaps by the spirit of the Vatican Council. But the more conservative elements in the Vatican Curia, and, I believe, within the Czech hierarchy, are unsympathetic, to say the least, to the concept of worker priests. Some of these former underground priests would like to continue their ministry today outside any formal parish structure - partly because that is the way they are used to working, and partly because they genuinely believe that much re-evangelisation is necessary in their post-communist society, and re-evangelisation is less likely to happen within the normal parish.
Conditional re-ordination
When it comes to ordination, church authorities rightly want to exclude any doubts about validity. So once any doubt is introduced, Rome tends to look for conditional re-ordination, the condition being that ordination is only now intended if it wasn’t valid the first time. Men, however, who feel they know as a fact they were correctly ordained, and who for many years have practised as priest or bishop, get very resentful when the validity of their ministry is anyway challenged.
Poor information in Rome
When the church is persecuted in a country, some clergy stay with their flocks and some leave. Some of those who left Czechoslovakia ended up in Rome, in the Holy Office for instance, which has been taking the decisions, or not taking the decisions, about the position of those who stayed. People like Bishop Chytil feel very strongly that ‘shepherds who left the flock when the wolf came’ - to use his own words - should not be making decisions about those who remained.
The biological solution
The unsatisfactory limbo situation in which many of the former underground priests find themselves appears to continue. According to the Tablet of 5 August 1995, Josef Rabas, a Czech, and former professor of Pastoral Theology in Wurzburg, Germany, suggested publicly that the best solution for the problem of the clandestine clergy was to let them die out. One of the clandestine bishops, Jan Blaha, who now works as a secondary school teacher in Brno and as a priest at weekends, spoke out publicly for the first time, saying that although he knew Rabas’s views were shared by many, such a ‘biological solution’ was both unacceptable and defamatory, reminiscent of former communist thinking and terminology, and took no account of what the clergy in the underground church had suffered. The Tablet incidentally notes that, for whatever reason, Jan Blaha is the one and only clandestine bishop who has never been asked to sign a declaration renouncing his rights as a bishop - for instance the right to ordain, or use the title and insignia of a bishop.
The views of the underground clergy we interviewed
Dr Karel Chytil, the celebrant of the Mass we filmed, fled from Czechoslovakia to Italy when the Nazis came, and there he studied philosophy and theology. Later he made his way to England where he served for two years in the RAF. After the war he returned to study in Prague. Then came the communist coup which, with his history, ended any chance of a professional career in Czechoslovakia. He told us that he did all the most menial jobs imaginable under communism, but the one job which was forbidden to him was intellectual work. Chytil was consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Davidek in 1977. He began to weep when he spoke to us after Mass about his family.
I have a wife and two sons - but here again, an important point. True to the apostolic tradition, when I was consecrated I subsequently made the promise of celibacy (weeping). You understand. I came to an understanding with my wife that we should discontinue our married life. We would continue to live together, but not in marriage. And that is a great problem for the official church. When I tell them they smile a little, they cannot understand it, and yet it was quite common in apostolic times. Many bishops were married - take Gregory of Nazianzus. The bishop had a wife, had children. In Erfurt there is the tomb of a bishop, Saint Joachim. Next to him rests a holy woman, his wife, and next to them is buried their holy daughter. That was normal in the church and they simply won’t understand it.
Bishop Chytil finds it hard to accept that there should be a shortage of priests to undertake the ministry, and at the same time there are several hundred priests from the underground church wishing to re-assume their ministry and for one reason or another, find it impossible.
It is utterly incomprehensible to me - and here again I speak as a pastor - if I were faced with the dilemma of there being many believers with no priests to minister to them, and also of having at my disposal a group of priests, I would call them, even if they do not fulfil all the official requirements of the contemporary church - I would send them, even press them into service ...
He also argues that celibacy is a charism needing a special calling, different from priesthood. Whether or not one agrees with him, one senses that he is being unwise in propounding such arguments. This is what Rome fears most of all - that allowing married clergy to operate as if it were normal would be the thin end of the wedge which would weaken the hold on celibacy.
Frequently, celibacy is considered a precondition for priesthood. This is in contradiction to the gospels. The apostles once asked Jesus whether it was admissible to repudiate a wife, and he said ‘No’. On this subject he also says that if a man takes another wife, a divorced woman, or even if he looks at a woman with lust, he is guilty of adultery. And the apostles tell him, if such is the relationship between man and woman it is better not to get married. And Jesus replies, ‘Not everybody understands this. Only those to whom it has been given’. So Christ is saying that a special calling is needed even for celibacy which is understood only by those to whom it has been given. And that’s why I believe that there is a great misunderstanding between the church at present and Christ, in so far as the church requires celibacy as an absolute precondition of priesthood. That contradicts Christ. I must have a calling for celibacy, and if it has not been given me, then these are things I do not understand ...
Sometimes it is suggested to us that the church could adopt the so called Anglican solution. Like those married Anglican priests who have joined the Catholic church and receive a dispensation which allows them to serve as Catholic priests. This is not a good solution. We are not asking for a dispensation. We wish the church to accept the validity of the two ways to God - the way of marriage and the celibate way. They are two ways to God, both willed by God, both requiring a special divine calling.
Bishop Chytil was consecrated by Bishop Davidek. He gets angry when he thinks of all the attempts to malign Davidek. He himself took pains to investigate Davidek’s credentials.
I am the only one who has known Bishop Davídek such as he really was before God. I was an intimate friend of his at a time when all the others had scorned him. Suddenly in 1982 we received a circular letter from the official church casting doubt on Bishop Davidek, saying that he was a dubious priest illegitimately passing himself off as bishop. I was appointed by our community to find out whether he was competent to ordain priests. I visited him in 1982 and established that he was a properly consecrated bishop with the apostolic succession. And I recommended to my superior to contact Archbishop Meisner of Berlin who already, even in those days of communism, paid regular visits to the Vatican as a close friend of the present Pope. I suggested that he should make enquiries in Rome. We have nothing - all that I have is God’s calling but no piece of paper. To keep a documentary proof of my being a priest or a bishop was very dangerous. For me it would have meant prison, and prison for the whole family because in my case they would not only have jailed me, they would have jailed my wife and destroyed my children. So everything was done on the basis of trust. But to get back to Bishop Davidek: Archbishop Meisner happened to be going to Rome and he came back with the information that Bishop Davidek was listed as a bishop in the Vatican yearbook. There could not have been a more conclusive proof - from the Vatican itself! There were other proofs, but at the time this one was decisive for us. It was not all the same to us whether we were ordained by an illegitimate bishop, we wanted to know. I used to say, ‘I don’t care about the permission for my ordination, but I do care about its validity’. Because here, practically nothing was permitted. But I wanted to be a valid priest before God. And we were told that he figures as bishop in the papal yearbook. And by the way, this is typical of the Vatican diplomacy. They would print in the Vatican yearbook a piece of information that for us was a matter of life and death and yet everybody knew that the first people to read it would be the secret police!
Fr Vaclav Ventura
One of the priests at the Mass, Fr Vaclav Ventura, was of the opinion that the problems of the underground church began when the Vatican and the Czech communist government began talking in the early 70s:
Suddenly problems started when the Vatican, represented by Archbishop Casaroli began co-operating with our communist government. And we have to ask why? Much information must be contained in the archives of the Communist Party’s Central Committee. The then boss of their Department for Religious Affairs, a man by the name of Cinódr, laid down a precondition for the negotiations with the Vatican which was mainly about the appointment of bishops. This precondition was the banning and suppression of the underground church. And of course, it was difficult for the state security and for the communists to define what that underground church was. So they concentrated on the group around Bishop Davidek. And from that moment in the negotiations between the communists and the Vatican, the problems for the underground church began.
Of course they then invented the worst slander about the person of Bishop Davidek and his activities, typical state security slander - that he is a fraud, that he is mentally unbalanced, that he is an agent of state security - none of which was true.
Fr Jiri Kvapil, forbidden to work as a priest
The poignant situation of the undergound priests who now find themselves out of a job is perhaps best illustrated by one of the married priests, Fr Jiri Kvapil:
I worked a lot with children and young people, teenagers, and with a community of married people. The bishop has now forbidden me to undertake these activities without giving me any reason - and the new generations of young children are not being given all the spiritual attention they require. And as for the community of married people, I am not allowed to help them either. I would not mind if the bishops here would allow me to soldier on as I did before - not very much in the open. Nobody needs to know. One meets in daily life so many people who are unhappy, needy, looking for something - which offers priests a special opportunity to serve.
Fr Stejkozová, unemployed, married with seven children
Fr Stejkozová was a married man when he was encouraged to become a priest by the present Cardinal Archbishop of Prague, Miloslav Vlk, then parish priest in Rozmitál. He seems to believe finance is a critical problem.
In the meantime, while I was preparing myself for priesthood, five children were born to me and my wife, and Bishop Davidek ordained me according to the Eastern Rite. I was active as a secret priest for ten years. In 1989 I reported to Archbishop Vlk with a petition to be integrated into the work of the church, according to whatever was possible. But the Archdiocese of Prague has no conception, no scheme for using ordained and married men and I would sum it up in one word - the reasons are financial. ‘We are unable to secure the livelihood of a family, of a priest who has children, so as to enable him to carry on as a priest.’ That is the root of the problem.
Mrs Stejkozová was present at the Mass with three of their children. She helped to bring home to us the fact that when a man accepted ordination under communism, the whole family risked their future in the same way as he did.
I had to agree to my husband’s ordination and I was aware all along what it meant. The whole family was involved in that service, risking even physical liquidation. He had a job, and had many pupils, people he taught, formed spiritually and all that, which meant involving the whole family - we have seven children altogether.
Now, after long years, I myself have taken up a job and the situation in the family has been reversed in a way - my husband is at home, unemployed, and I go out to work. But I am grateful to the Lord - even now I view my work as service. I am a social worker in a prison for violent juvenile delinquents, age fifteen to eighteen. But it pains me to see that there are people who need spiritual guidance and that others are being shamefully prevented from giving them that guidance.
Dr Jan Konzal, married priest, engineer, vehemently opposes conditional re-ordination
Dr Jan Konzal is a telecommunications engineer with a degree in cybernetics. He has a good job, with international travel involved. He talked about his time as a secret priest.
We defined our task as private pastoral care for people who for one reason or another cannot publicly go to church. Either because they were afraid for their jobs, or because the public church is not their cup of tea. There’s no point in arguing with them whether this is right or wrong, they simply won’t enter a church. They thirsted for the gospel, they longed to live among Christians, so we tried to mediate the possibility for them to get there unofficially, somehow.
I think that our form of pastoral care is still needed in the church, as one of many. Not as the only one, but one of many. And I think that it would be a pity to throw away the experience we have gained, often at a considerable cost to ourselves, and by trial and error. That is our main argument why we should be taken seriously. I think that the church, for its own good, should be able to reach people who are unconventional, and whose numbers are ever growing. For instance in my place of work, among the several hundred of my colleagues only perhaps two find it acceptable to go to church. And yet these are first rate people.
As a married man, Konzal was ordained according to the Eastern Rite, but expected to be transfered to the Roman Rite.
The transfer to the Roman Rite was done merely verbally and with the promise that the then bishop, Jan Hirko, would arrange for us to be given the appropriate documents should circumstances ever permit it. After 1989, we asked him to do this. He received the lists of names and took them to Rome. He subsequently told us he wanted to prepare the documents for this transfer, but it was forbidden him in Rome, so he returned home and has had no more dealings with us.
Dr Konzal spoke of the conditions put to him for resumption of his priesthood.
Formally the conditions are two - to undergo a theological examination, which presents no problem for us, speaking in all modesty. And they have no doubts in this respect, which is why they entrusted us with running various theological courses. The second condition, which presents an insurmountable obstacle to me and my friends, is re-ordination. Because we have not been released from the bond of the diocese. It is unfair. And so I cannot accept this condition. Can not!
Some others did accept this condition - how many it is difficult to say. Our Ordinarius, who is celibate and recognised as bishop although not allowed to function as such, has a list of about 160 priests secretly ordained. Of these about one third seek service in the public church. A good third would like to be active in the non-public pastoral care, incognito, till the moment when the person concerned feels the need to receive a sacrament - this may take six months, a year or may never happen. Such people need friends rather than a service. And the final third have taken up a wait-and-see position and I do not know what they think.
According to Dr Konzal, the Vatican offered two options:
The Vatican offered two alternatives to the Czech Bishops’ Conference. One was a Secular Institute - this we would have preferred because we believe that this form of pastoral care should not become extinct, and we need fresh blood. But the Conference accepted the second alternative which requires priests to become integrated in the parish structure, the structure of the public church. At the same time I have heard many a bishop say, ‘But we want you precisely as you are!’ So that is the big dilemma of the Bishops’ Conference - some of the bishops are adamant in insisting on the classical form of pastoral care and will not permit any exceptions.
Fr Jaroslav Duka, OP
Fr Jaroslav Duka is Provincial of the Dominican order, and became friendly with President Havel when they were both in Pilsen prison together. He is highly respected, and influential in affairs of both church and state, and anxious to help resolve the problems of the former undergound bishops and priests, but even he did not seem to be able to make much progress.
We must not forget that we have not always been sufficiently strict with those who, as collaborators with the communist regime, had discredited the church. And now those other people who had really suffered for the church sometimes tend to be viewed as if they had done her harm. That is not a good solution. I have personally discussed it more than once with Archbishop Vlk and once with Cardinal Ratzinger - they have promised that a solution acceptable to both sides will be found. But it is a fact that the question has been complicated not only by the excessive caution of the Vatican negotiators but also by the excessive zeal or lack of caution of some members of the Bishop Davidek group.
The present situation
And so the talk goes on and on. But even now, in the spring of 1996, my information is that little has changed. It is the kind of problem that a Pope with humanity and flexibility like Paul VI would sort out in no time - just like he sorted out the French Worker Priests. But the present powers-that-be in Rome are not of that ilk. However if blame is to be attached for this sad situation, some of it must rest with the local hierarchy and it’s leadership. As Dr Konzal mentioned, Cardinal Ratzinger did propose the option of forming a Secular Institute to the Bishops’ Conference. Such an institute would have a certain independence which would permit it to incorporate different kinds of ministry and would have been acceptable to many of the former underground priests. Unfortunately the Bishops’ Conference - especially, it is said, the Slovak bishops - showed no enthusiasm for this solution. For them it is integration in the parish structure of the public church or nothing. So, if I had to guess what will happen, I would say on the evidence so far, very little, and that many of the bishops and priests of the former underground church - and particularly the married men - will be let die off in a terrestrial limbo, their offer of service spurned and rejected. But nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong!"

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 705
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
From the Italian magazine, "Si, si, No, no", date and issue not certain...yet...authored by Arai Danielle, translated from the Italian by Ken Gordon with assistance from his wife and son.

"The Montini-Stalin Accord

The Rome-Moscow Accord

In 1962, at Metz, in France, Monsignor Nikodim, who was in charge of the foreign affairs of the Russian Church, met with Cardinal Tisserant, in order to negotiate for the attendance of orthodox observers at Vatican Council II. Also present was the Bishop of Metz, Monsignor Schmitt.
The substance of the final accord was made known by both the Communist and Catholic press. "France Nouvelle", the weekly paper of the French Communist party, wrote, in its issue dated 16-22 January 1963 on page 15: "the Catholic Church [...] has been engaged in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, in order that the Council will make no direct attacks against the Communist regime".
"La Lorrain" of 9 February 1963 published the account of a press conference given by the previously mentioned Bishop of Metz, Monsignor Schmitt; the account is reprinted from "La Croix" of 15 February 1963 on page 5:
"It was in Metz that Cardinal Tisserant met Monsignor Nikodim [...] and the concordat of state accomplished there was the message which Monsignor Willebrands carried to Moscow [...] Monsignor Nikodim has accepted [...] the agreement of guarantees concerning that which affects the political attitude of the Council". What did Monsignor Nikodim understand by "political attitude" of the Council? The meaning is clear from a declaration he made in 1961 in New Delhi to the Ecumenical Council of Churches:
"The Vatican is often aggressive in its political plans toward the USSR. We who are Christian, believing, Orthodox Russians, are also loyal citizens of our country and ardently love our father-land. Therefore anything which is directed against our country, is not going to enhance our mutual relations".
The formal prohibition against condemning Bolshevik Communism hidden behind the facade of patriotic loyalty, is an artifice identified with the Russian nation, victim of that regime.
On the other hand, it was no secret in the Vatican diplomatic service that the Patriarchate of Moscow had for some time been miserably enslaved to the Communist regime and that Monsignor Nikodim, who would die during an audience with John Paul I, was known by the western secret services as a KGB man operating inside the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. That notwithstanding, and even with such a person as spokesman, on the basis of complete insincerity, the desired Rome Moscow accord was concluded in Metz, guaranteeing expressly to the Russian Patriarchate and, therefore, to the government of Moscow that in the Council "occasions for debates concerning Communism wouldn't be allowed". (E.E. Hales: Pope John and His Revolution).

The Testimony of Monsignor Lefebvre

This commitment came to the Council supported by Vatican authority, and was to be strictly respected during all discussions by the Council, even though it was contrary to the wishes of the average loyal Churchman: this was reported in the book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and was testified to by, among others, Monsignor Lefebvre:
"Today the faithful everywhere tell us: they have changed our religion, it is not the Catholic religion any more. And they have been scandalized by seeing Bishops with Marxist tendencies. But this doesn't surprise me: during the Council, Communism was not condemned by even one sentence. It is something absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church. A pastoral council was gotten together self-styled "pastoral", that is in order to take care of the souls and salvation of the faithful, as well as the salvation of the world. Well, concerning the greatest evil, the most ignoble, the most destructive towards society, towards human beings, towards liberty, that is Communism, it was said: we won't condemn it during the Council.
Personally I know something of this particular matter. It was I, together with Monsignor Sigaud, who collected 450 signatures of Bishops who supported a condemnation of Communism. I was the one who brought them to the Secretariat of the Council. They put them in a drawer! And they want you to believe that in the Council there were no demands for a condemnation of Communism. And I was the one who personally carried that document and I have maintained the list of the Bishops who asked for this condemnation. It is really incredible. I was a witness. I arose in order to protest. It was denied that 450 signatures had been presented. Then it was said that they had arrived too late and that it was not known where they were. In reality it was decided that Communism would not be condemned, in order that the delegates from Moscow would come." (From the press conference of his Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre of the 9th of December 1983 at the airport in Paris for the presentation of An Open Letter to the Pope.)

Confirmation by Monsignor Roche

More recently, the French magazine "Itinéraires" has written concerning the gravity of and the responsibility for the Rome Moscow accord in issues no.70, February 1963, no.72, April 1963, no.84, June 1964. See also the English Catholic magazine "Approaches", supplement to no.79.
Most recently, the same magazine, "Itinéraires", no.280, February 1984, under the title "L'accord Rome Moscou", summarized the history of these shameful negotiations. In that issue, the editor of "Itinéraires", Jean Madiran, wrote concerning Cardinal Tisserant:
"[...] I have always had the impression that he is 'un foùrbe'" In defense of Cardinal Tisserant, Monsignor Roche, who was his intimate collaborator for 25 years, has intervened with a letter published in number 285 of "Itinéraires", under the title "L'accord Rome Moscou Confermation de Monsignor Roche". In our report, we translate this letter for you who are concerned with our subject:
"[...] not without reason, you comment concerning the [Rome-Moscow] accord which dates, you say, from 1962. Your comments, however, demonstrate your ignorance of a preceding accord which was put in place during the last war, in 1942 to be exact, and of which the protagonists were Monsignor Montini and Stalin himself. This accord of 1942 seems to me to be of considerable importance.
But I wish, for now, to follow your lead entirely in your comments on the accord of 1962.
Everyone knows [?] that this accord had been negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level.
Monsignor Nikodim and Cardinal Tisserant were only the spokesmen, the one for the head of the Kremlin, the other for the High Pontiff then gloriously reigning.
The reasons why Monsignor Nikodim desired to meet with Cardinal Tisserant as the suitable spokesman were obvious and known by everyone. In the first place, Cardinal Tisserant spoke Russian. In addition he was, from 1936 through 1959, secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church. Finally, the two had been acquainted with one another [...] But I can assure you, Mr. Editor, that the decision to invite the Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by S.S. John XXIII, with the open encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was the adviser of the Patriarch of Venice at the time when he was Archbishop of Milan.
Moreover: it was Cardinal Montini who secretly managed the policies of the Secretariat of State during the first session of the Council, in the clandestine position that the Pope had procured for him in the famous Castle San Giovanni, hidden within Vatican City. Cardinal Tisserant had received formal orders, that in order to negotiate the accord, and in order to supervise [read: to impose] its implementation during the Council he should demand its enforcement. Therefore every time that a Bishop wanted to bring up the question of Communism, the Cardinal, at the desk of the advisor to the chairman, intervened in order to remember [read: in order to impose on the Bishops, ignorant of all the hidden reasons] to deliver to the Pope [more exactly, to his dismal eminence, Monsignor Montini], deliberate silence."
Cardinal Tisserant continues Monsignor Roche "was a soldier. He was obedient to his commanders, to his superiors, even when his orders didn't coincide at all with his personal viewpoints". In the case of the Rome Moscow accord, "the Cardinal received firm, irrevocable, directives from the Pope himself and the late Cardinal was always a man of faith. He believed in authority, and obeyed it even when he was convinced an action was a diplomatic or political error".

Montini, predecessor of Paul VI.

There would be many things to tell concerning the "obedience", the "faith" and the "loyalty" of Cardinal Tisserant. For now, we refer our readers to Leo XIII and the biblical researches of the distinguished professor, Monsignor Francis Spadafora, the edition "Arti Graphiche", Rovigo, and to pp. 173 188 wherein he documents with which devices the above mentioned Cardinal reduced the Pontifical Biblical Commission to silence, behind the back and against the orders of Pius XII, by means of the "new" exegesis, not more Catholic, but rationalist, and the principal source of the modern doctrinal pollution in the Church. (See also Pierre Grelot S. J., "La constitution sur Rèvèlation, I La perparation d'un schèma conciliaire", in "Etudes", ed. 1966, pp. 93-113).
Here, above all, it should interest us to note, as Monsignor Roche confirms, the responsibilities of Monsignor Montini, promoting an accord with Moscow from as far in the past as 1942.
We recognize that, although we must ignore his judgments, Monsignor Roche is shown to be a good connoisseur of actual occurrences. He has also demonstrated this in his work "Pie XII devant L'Histoire", (ed. "du Jour"). He knows that Monsignor Montini, as Deputy to the Secretary of State of Pius XII, leaned to the left, in harmony with tendencies nourished in his youth (See Fappani Molinari: "Montini giovane (The Young Montini)", ed. Marietti), but unknown to and in neat antithesis with the intentions and the directives of Pius XII, the Pope whom he should have represented, but who, obviously, he considered to be deprived of his own illuminated vision of politics and of history. Along this line of reasoning, Montini made permanent contacts, unknown to Pius XII, with the Soviets during the last war, as Monsignor Roche remembers; contacts of which Pius XII was informed by the Protestant archbishop of Upsala, who, due to his position, had received this information, complete with proof, directly from the Swedish secret service, which was the most up-to-date on the maneuvers of the Communist countries of Eastern Europe (See "Corriere de Rome", June 1975 n. 145). Additionally in October of 1954, Pius XII came to knowledge of a secret report of the archbishop of Riga, who was jailed by the Soviets, which affirmed that "there had been contacts made in his name [of Pius XII] with the persecutors on the part of a high personality in the Vatican Secretariat of State". Because of the treachery of Montini, writes Monsignor Roche, "the bitterness [of Pius XII] was so great that his health suffered, and he became resigned to the necessity to govern the course of Vatican foreign affairs alone" (op cit.).
According to "La Controreforme Catholique", n.97, p.15, "the inquisition did uncover a traitor in the circles of Monsignor Montini, the Jesuit Tondi, who, in the course of a dramatic confrontation with Cardinal N., was recognized as having given to the Soviets the names of the priests dispatched underground into the USSR and who [as a consequence of the espionage] had all been caught and killed. And it was known that Tondi, married [at first civilly and then afterwards] religiously [to a Communist activist, after various circumstances and the death of his wife] would find "work" again in Rome in 1965, with the aid of (by then) Pope Paul VI. Finally, the Pope [Pius XII] discovered that his deputy [Montini] had hidden all the dispatches relative to the schism of the Chinese Bishops from him".
Removed from the Secretariat of State, appointed Archbishop of Milan, but significantly, never created a Cardinal as long as Pius XII lived (although that See always pertained to a Cardinal), Montini, and his "circles", at the death of Pope Pacelli, managed cleverly and effectively from inside the Conclave to elect a Pope "of transition". Ready and most proper for the purpose, Monsignor Roncalli appeared, advanced in age, "illuminated" by the then Archbishop of Milan, who, not being a Cardinal, could not be the Pope, but who would have an equal opportunity to determine the course of the new pontificate.
The novelty of the name chosen, John XXIII, came as a surprise to many, but his secret logic was noted well by the "attaché to the works": his pontificate "prepared the way" for Montini and, simultaneously, first announced a "novelty", a break with tradition and particularly with the last pontificates, from Pius IX to Pius XII. We should have known that Montini, after he had become Paul VI, would impose on the whole Church the reversal of the way which had always been cherished, which had, up to that moment, always been treacherously persecuted.

Political Error?

For Monsignor Roche, Cardinal Tisserant has obeyed because "he believed in authority and he obeyed it even when he was convinced an action was a diplomatic or political error".
But can the Rome Moscow accord be characterized simply as a diplomatic or political error? Certainly not. It suffices to meditate over the terms of the accord, respecting that which Rome had obtained the insignificant presence of some orthodox observers, guarded by the KGB and on that which Rome had conceded: the silence of the Church concerning "that iniquitous doctrine of the aforementioned Communism, contrary in the greatest degree to the same natural law, which, once permitted to exist, would lead to the radical subversion of laws, of business, of the property of everyone, and of the same human society", (Pius IX: Qui Pluribus 1846; Syllabus IV); concerning that which "crushes and destroys, which rots the marrow of human society, and leads it to ruin", (Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris 1878); concerning that "danger", that threat of throwing headlong "all the people completely ... into a worse barbarity than that in which the greatest part of the world lay at the appearance of the Savior"; concerning that "satanic scourge" in which "there is no place for the idea of God, there doesn't exist any difference between spirit and matter, between soul and body; and which doesn't concern itself with the survival of the soul after death", and which "strips man of his liberty, of the spiritual roots of his moral behavior, removes every dignity of the human person and every moral shame against the assaults of blind stimuli". (Pius XI Divini Redemptoris 1937); concerning that "... iniquity which aims to tear the faith from those to which it promises material comfort". (Pius XII "Menti nostrae", 1950.)
And herein we stop for brevity. But it is sufficient to understand that Rome didn't have the right to promise absolute silence; that the game was not worth it, and it doesn't explain its position; that the position taken and maintained by the Holy See was a renunciation of the mission of the Church, a betrayal of God, of the same Church and of humanity; that this black page in the history of the Church will remain, as so justly writes Jean Madiran, "the shame of the Holy See in the 20th century".


Obedience to Error

It is obvious that in such circumstances, an appeal to obedience doesn't work. Monsignor Roche writes: Cardinal Tisserant (who, as Prefect of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, had disobeyed Pius XII) obeyed John XXIII.
But, if Cardinal Tisserant obeyed John XXIII, the latter in his turn was guided by Montini, who as is even attested to by Monsignor Roche as far back as 1942 disobeyed Pius XII and his predecessors. For the least which we could say concerning the pretended "obedience" of the ecclesiastics who negotiated the accord with Moscow who then actually included Cardinal Willebrands is that it is an obedience which has its roots in the long, stubborn disobedience of the then Monsignor Montini, disobedience not only to the Pope then "gloriously reigning", but also to the constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on social questions and on Communism. And so it is enough.

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them

In 1937 Pius XI would write: "Before such a threat the Catholic Church could not be and was not silent. This Apostolic See especially was not silent which knows it to be its special mission to defend truth and justice and all those eternal goods which Communism repudiates and fights [..]
Even those who are ultra-hostile to the Church, who from Moscow direct this struggle against Christian civilization, with their unceasing attacks in words and in deeds give evidence that the Papacy, even in our days, has continued faithfully to protect the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and most frequently and in more convincing ways than any other public authority in the world has called attention to the Communist danger". (Divini Redemptoris.) And Pius XI quotes his predecessors beginning with Pius IX who "even before 1846 [...] pronounced a solemn condemnation" against Communism.
The successors of Pius XI, Benedict XV and Pius XII have also affirmed the prescriptions of their predecessor. Today, however, it has been totally turned up-side down: at the Council, the Church, which could not be silent and was not silent until then, was made to be silent; those same ultra-hostiles give evidence that Rome has stopped both protecting the sanctuary of the Christian religion and attracting attention to the Communist danger. Thus, for example, Togliatti in his memorial wrote: "In the organized Catholic world and in the Catholic masses there has been an obvious drift to the left from the time of Pope John". (Il Tempo, 13 June 1984.) In fact, the "conciliar" Church, built on the disobedience of Montini to the preceding Magisterium of the Church, pretends to ... reconcile the incompatible even in the social field, marrying Christianity with Communism. It, for such purposes, appears to believe and has decided to believe that, in order to Christianize Communism, it suffices to eliminate materialism and atheism, almost as though those are the only motives of Communism, and not also its social doctrine, which is totally opposed to the rudiments of right reason and of Revelation, and which has been condemned as "intrinsically perverse".
And here "up-to-date" priests and religious repudiate the age-old doctrine of the Church in order to preach, in place of the Gospel of Christ, "a new presumptive Gospel which Bolshevik Communists and atheists announce to humanity as an almost beneficial and redeeming message". (Pius XI: Divini Redemptoris; in place of the Redemption of Christ, the "false redemption" of Marx ([ib]); in place of supernatural Christian hope, the "false promises" of an "Heaven which is of this earth" ([ib]); in place of justice and Christian brotherhood, a "pseudo ideal of justice, equality, and brotherhood" ([ib]), which in reality is inequitable egalitarism and suffocating collectivism.
They sustain the desire to surpass the seductive practices of Marxism against the masses, as though they might defeat the error by approriating some of it, rather than by opposing it with the truth. They in reality are reduced to spokesmen, to trend-setters, to "useful idiots" of Communism.
They finally come to join those hostile to the Church by imputing to it responsibility for the injustices, real or imagined, of governments and individuals, as though these injustices have been brought forth by the social doctrines of the Church and not by contempt of them.
Others, more persistent in error, pass beyond words: they become guerrilla priests and religious in Latin America or ministers of Marxist governments, as in Nicaragua.

Conclusion

On 31 October 1942, Pius XII, in obedience to the request of the Virgin of Fatima (but without the requested participation of the Bishops), consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with the radio message Benedicite Deum Caeli, in which he said:
"Queen of Peace, pray for us and give the world at war the peace for which the people sigh: peace in truth, in justice, and in the charity of Christ. Give peace to arms and peace to souls, in order that in the tranquility of order the Kingdom of God might increase".
But in that same year 1942, by means of the Montinian initiative with Stalin, "dialogue" of the Catholic Hierarchy with the Soviet hierarchy, which represents that regime which tramples upon truth, justice, and the charity of Christ, was already delineated. It was faith in mediation by men with the lords of the earth which undermined faith in the mediation by Mary with the One Lord of Heaven and earth. It was the first fruit of the compromise, contrary to Divine Providence, which 20 years later would bring an ecumenical Council to be silent concerning the oppressive Communist threat and to swindle Fatima ([cfr]sì sì no no, a. VIII, n.Il Concilio Vaticano II raggirò Fatima).(Vatican Council II swindled Fatima.)

Daniele"

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:33 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re:
John Daly wrote:
Vince,

This subject of episcopal jurisdiction is very big, very difficult and very serious and I honestly don't think I want to buy into it and all its ramifications on this forum at the present time.

But I think I should say that I don't believe in this concept of episcopal jurisdiction supplied by Christ to whoever has valid episcopal orders and professes the Catholic Faith in time of crisis. Nor do I believe that the traditional emergency bishops have any more power than I have to elect a pope - and that is none at all.

Nor do I believe that it is possible for all validly named Catholic bishops to cease to exist - and that point is taken to be dogmatic by all theologians I am aware of who advert to it.

But where there is a surviving Catholic bishop duly named I do not know, nor does the Catholic faith require that I should know. The prophet Elias believed he was the last surviving worshipper of the true God, but God said to him: "I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal."

Once we get firmly into our heads that we do not have to save the Church, we have to be saved by the Church, the mystery ceases to perturb. This crisis will end, and God will end it, by men who will either be regularly commissioned by His Church or else will do miracles to bear witness to their extraordinary mission.

Popes sometimes gave bishops power to transmit not only episcopal orders but also the apostolic mandate to candidates of their choice in persecuted lands, and that may be part of the solution. But we have no details. We don't know what powers were given to whom in China though it seems very probable that some extraordinary powers were granted to someone for episcopal consecrations. It seems highly improbable that the unspecified special power delegated to Archbishop Thuc by Pope Pius XI (not XII) related to consecrating bishops at any time and in any place. He certainly made no such claim. But someone somewhere may still possess such powers derived from a true pope.

We are amid a crisis and a mystery and God has not asked us to solve the mystery. He asks us to keep the faith. May He grant us all grace to do so.

John


Just bumping this, because it's such an excellent post (from June '06), and apropos to the current discussion on the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 705
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Re:
John Daly wrote:
But where there is a surviving Catholic bishop duly named I do not know, nor does the Catholic faith require that I should know. The prophet Elias believed he was the last surviving worshipper of the true God, but God said to him: "I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal."

This is very important for us today. I have an article, written by an Alfred Nock, from a magazine published by the "Foundation for Economic Education, Inc." (of all places) entitled, "Isaiah's Job" which covers this matter from the Old Testament in some detail, and which I have always seen as particularly apropos to our times. In fact, I believe it is so apropos that I would love to post it to this forum and thread immediately. However, I am not quite sure how to go about this. Perhaps John will help. I have it in both MS-Word and PDF format.

Believe me, and even perhaps as strange as it may seem, this article will give many of us consolation and hope for the future.

I also have another, much shorter article, written by Juan Donoso Cortez with is most apropos for us.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:10 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re: Re:
Ken Gordon wrote:
In fact, I believe it is so apropos that I would love to post it to this forum and thread immediately. However, I am not quite sure how to go about this. Perhaps John will help. I have it in both MS-Word and PDF format.

Believe me, and even perhaps as strange as it may seem, this article will give many of us consolation and hope for the future.

I also have another, much shorter article, written by Juan Donoso Cortez with is most apropos for us.


I love Cortes!

Ken, just reply to the thread and under the section of the reply page where it says, "If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below" hit "Browse" and you can attach a .pdf file to your post.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 705
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
I love Cortes!

Ken, just reply to the thread and under the section of the reply page where it says, "If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below" hit "Browse" and you can attach a .pdf file to your post.

Thanks, John. Here they are:


Attachments:
File comment: A very short few statements written by Juan Donoso Cortez
Juan Donoso Cortes.pdf [27.93 KiB]
Downloaded 328 times
File comment: Isaiah's Job. Very apropos for us today.
Isaiah1.pdf [84.71 KiB]
Downloaded 372 times

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon
Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Letter dated May 26, 1846, Juan Donoso Cortes to Montalembert:

Quote:
There is no period of history which doesn't end in catastrophe.

The first period of history began with Creation and ended in the Flood. And what does the Flood signify? Two things: the natural triumph of evil over good and the supernatural triumph of God over evil, by means of a direct, personal, sovereign act.

Men were still wringing wet with the waters of the Flood, when the same battle started up again. At Our Lord's coming was everywhere night, deep, palpable night.

The Lord is raised on the cross, and light returns to the world. What does that great catastrophe signify? Two things: the natural triumph of evil over good, and the supernatural triumph of God over evil, by means of a direct, personal, sovereign act.

What does Scripture say of the end of world? It says that the Antichrist will be lord of the universe, and that the last judgment will take place at that time, along with the last catastrophe. Like the others, it will signify the natural triumph of evil over good, and the supernatural triumph of God over evil, by means of a direct, personal, sovereign act.

And don't tell me that if defeat is certain, fighting is useless. In the first place, fighting can lessen, can soften the catastrophe, and in the second place, for us whose glory it is to be Catholic, fighting is the accomplishment of a duty, not the result of calculation. Let's thank God for having allowed us to do battle. Beyond this favor, let us not seek the grace to win. For those who fight generously for His cause, His great goodness reserves a reward far greater and more precious to man than victory here below.


Glorious!

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:40 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4158
New post Re: Papal elections in extraordinary circumstances
Ken, we should ask Michael Matt about this sentence: "It may be thought, then, that while taking care of the Remnant is no doubt a good job, it is not an especially interesting job because it is as a rule so poorly paid."

:)

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:50 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 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.