It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:26 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 
 Sedevacantism and jurisdiction 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
I received an invitation to debate the following on Fisheaters. Rather than do that, I will put a few thoughts here.

christulsa123 wrote:
Ok as I understand it, sedes believe that the pope is not a true pope, and that all the bishops attached to Vatican II, the pope, and the Vatican do not possess ordinary jurisdiction. They have no right to rule as bishops, to govern people, command or forbid them, oversee ecclesial communities, etc. Yet, sedes recognize sede bishops as having supplied jurisdiction, to ordain and confirm, to establish churches and seminaries, etc. Sedes say these sede bishops receive this right from the Church.

Yet, here is the problem. No sedes that I have ever heard of believe that sede bishops possess the right or Office to govern, ie to rule the faithful, ie according to how Christ instituted the Office of bishop. He instituted bishops to govern ecclesial communities. It is part of the nature of the Church to always have bishops that govern. No governing bishops, then the gates of hell have prevailed. The Catholic Church becomes an anarchy.

So my question is:


How is it possible that no bishops currently exist on Earth with the jurisdiction to govern or rule over ecclesial communities?


Maybe Fr Cekada would like to debate this question.


First, let's clarify the actual position.

christulsa123 wrote:
Ok as I understand it, sedes believe that the pope is not a true pope, and that all the bishops attached to Vatican II, the pope, and the Vatican do not possess ordinary jurisdiction.


The Catholic Church didn't cease to exist, or to have a hierarchy, in an instant in, say, 1958 or 1965. Such a view would be not merely nutty, but manifestly unorthodox. It's sufficiently clear that what happened was a process of apostasy by members of the Church, including countless laymen, clerics, and bishops. The key factor, we say, was the absence of a Roman Pontiff. Explaining this process in terms properly orthodox is an extraordinarily difficult task. Most commentators won't even attempt to do so. Those who have tried, usually end with some kind of unorthodoxy or at least folly.

Now, taking only one class of bishops, those appointed by Pius XII and since "retired," who is to say that every one of them has lost his ordinary jurisdiction? A resignation of anybody but the pope, must be accepted by a superior in order for it to be valid. It matters not that a man believes that he has resigned, if his resignation is invalid then he still holds the office he thinks he has given up. A clear example of this was Bishop de Castro Mayer, who in my view manifestly remained the bishop of Campos until his death in 1991, despite his attempted resignation in 1981.

christulsa123 wrote:
Yet, sedes recognize sede bishops as having supplied jurisdiction, to ordain and confirm, to establish churches and seminaries, etc. Sedes say these sede bishops receive this right from the Church.


That is all very crude. One does not need jurisdiction to establish an emergency chapel or even seminary. One would need jurisdiction to establish a parish or a diocesan seminary. Traditionalist bishops do not pretend to set up either of these. Supplied jurisdiction as it affects trad bishops (and priests) would appear to be limited to the validity of confessions. If any sede writer has said otherwise, please point me to the text.

christulsa123 wrote:
Yet, here is the problem. No sedes that I have ever heard of believe that sede bishops possess the right or Office to govern, ie to rule the faithful, ie according to how Christ instituted the Office of bishop. He instituted bishops to govern ecclesial communities. It is part of the nature of the Church to always have bishops that govern. No governing bishops, then the gates of hell have prevailed.


Well, that needs to be qualified, but I agree that the Church always must have bishops who possess ordinary jurisdiction.

christulsa123 wrote:
The Catholic Church becomes an anarchy.


Well, the anarchy is a fact, especially within what we call the Conciliar Church. There is immeasurably more real order within the average trad community. We obey, or at least make a serious attempt to obey, the canon law; we profess the true faith; we assist regularly at Holy Mass and receive the sacraments, we show proper reverence and respect to those who serve our spiritual needs, etc. Trad "parishes" are oases of order and peace. This much is indisputable (despite the reality that on Fisheaters, such plain and undeniable facts are daily disputed).

Anyway, that arguments cuts the other way. You have the appearance of government, but not the order which government produces; we have the order produced by the government of the Church from before Vatican II, despite the practical absence of the governors themselves for half a century. Your side of this is an intractable problem for you; our side of this has the appearance and salutary joy of a miracle. Why would any sedeplenist ever mention it? It's parallel with the mentioning of visible unity, something trads manifestly enjoy, and the Novus Ordo (whose name is Legion) does not even profess to believe in.

christulsa123 wrote:
How is it possible that no bishops currently exist on Earth with the jurisdiction to govern or rule over ecclesial communities?


It isn't possible, but that doesn't solve the problem. If you were living in Utah and couldn't find a Catholic church to attend, you wouldn't argue that the local Mormon tabernacle (is that what they are called?) must therefore be Catholic. Well, maybe you would argue that (I hope not!) but the rest of us wouldn't. We'd think we need to keep on looking, but even if we can't find a Catholic centre of worship near us, the Church still exists elsewhere, for this is a matter of faith.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
From The Catholic Encyclopedia when addressing the situation wherein the true Pope is not known or it is universally uncertain who the true Pope is, or even if there is one:

"The first duty of the abandoned flock is to find their True Pastor".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
I received an invitation to debate the following on Fisheaters. Rather than do that,

I am very curious as to why you would not accept the invitation?

In my own case, I would simply not bother since it would be obvious to me that none of those with whom I could debate would, in the least, be convinced of any truth I might put forth.

John Lane wrote:
Now, taking only one class of bishops, those appointed by Pius XII and since "retired," who is to say that every one of them has lost his ordinary jurisdiction? A resignation of anybody but the pope, must be accepted by a superior in order for it to be valid. It matters not that a man believes that he has resigned, if his resignation is invalid then he still holds the office he thinks he has given up. A clear example of this was Bishop de Castro Mayer, who in my view manifestly remained the bishop of Campos until his death in 1991, despite his attempted resignation in 1981.

Yet from your own discussion on this matter, if an anti-pope can validly appoint bishops through "supplied jurisdiction", as you have mentioned in the past, how could such an anti-pope NOT accept, validly, a resignation from a bishop? Or are you considering only those true bishops whose purported resignations were NOT formally accepted by their anti-pope "superiors"?

John Lane wrote:
Supplied jurisdiction as it affects trad bishops (and priests) would appear to be limited to the validity of confessions.

Which is what I have firmly believed concerning "supplied jurisdiction" all along.

John Lane wrote:
christulsa123 wrote:
How is it possible that no bishops currently exist on Earth with the jurisdiction to govern or rule over ecclesial communities?

It isn't possible, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed. There is also the fact that we simply do not actually know that "no bishops currently exist on Earth with the jurisdiction to govern or rule over ecclesial communities". We simply do not have access to all the facts in this matter: we do not know enough to make such a decision. I would most certainly never even assume such a thing.

John Lane wrote:
If you were living in Utah

...or Idaho...

John Lane wrote:
and couldn't find a Catholic church to attend, you wouldn't argue that the local Mormon tabernacle (is that what they are called?)

Their so-called "tabernacles" correspond to our "churches". Their "parishes" are called "stakes", presided over by a "bishop". Each "stake" can have a "tabernacle". Mormonism is simply an extension of FreeMasonry. Their ceremonies are identical.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
"Yet from your own discussion on this matter, if an anti-pope can validly appoint bishops through "supplied jurisdiction", as you have mentioned in the past, how could such an anti-pope NOT accept, validly, a resignation from a bishop? Or are you considering only those true bishops whose purported resignations were NOT formally accepted by their anti-pope "superiors"?"

Hello Ken, I believe that the term used in this case is "common error" not supplied jurisdiction.


Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:50 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post John Lane contra Internet Swiss Guard.
Lovely cage match :P ?

This is what the title of the debate should be, "John Lane contra Internet Swiss Guard"

As it was codified by Thomas, I love it. :lol:

You have my support and vote John. :mrgreen:

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


Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:13 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
Mormonism is simply an extension of FreeMasonry. Their ceremonies are identical.


Play-acting. Without imagination.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Recusant wrote:
Hello Ken,

Hello, Nice to hear from you again.

Recusant wrote:
I believe that the term used in this case is "common error" not "supplied jurisdiction".


But "common error", to my mind simply means that guilt is not attributed to those holding that "common error". It does not give legitimate authority to anyone. It excuses, but does not supply the necessary authority or validity for actions requiring such.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Dear Ken,

Mate, you're having a brain fade! Canon 209: The Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum in common error or in positive and probable doubt of fact or law.

The supply of jurisdiction as a result of common error is absolutely the supply of "the necessary authority" and "validity for actions requiring such."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Talk about "brain fade", look at me!!

I forgot to add that the jurisdiction was supplied by the Church when there is common error.


Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Dear Ken,

Mate, you're having a brain fade!

At my age?!? Perish forbid! I'm only 71. :lol:

John Lane wrote:
Canon 209: The Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum in common error or in positive and probable doubt of fact or law.

The supply of jurisdiction as a result of common error is absolutely the supply of "the necessary authority" and "validity for actions requiring such."

OK. Then what I stated before holds: if "supplied jurisdiction" provides (according to your interpretation) necessary authority for an anti-pope to appoint a bishop, it also supplies the necessary authority for him to accept the resignation of a bishop. Therefore, that resignation is valid. Correct?

At least according to your interpretation of the issue, anyway.

Personally, I don't for a minute believe "supplied jurisdiction" to be applicable in either case.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
if "supplied jurisdiction" provides (according to your interpretation) necessary authority for an anti-pope to appoint a bishop, it also supplies the necessary authority for him to accept the resignation of a bishop. Therefore, that resignation is valid. Correct?


No, because jurisdiction is supplied for the common good. If Wojtyla had validly accepted de Castro Mayer's resignation, that was not conceivably for the common good, but quite the contrary.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
if "supplied jurisdiction" provides (according to your interpretation) necessary authority for an anti-pope to appoint a bishop, it also supplies the necessary authority for him to accept the resignation of a bishop. Therefore, that resignation is valid. Correct?

No, because jurisdiction is supplied for the common good. If Wojtyla had validly accepted de Castro Mayer's resignation, that was not conceivably for the common good, but quite the contrary.

OK. So, from what I can see, you are simply speculating about this entire issue, then? After all, who is to finally decide whether any of those sorts of acts are "for the common good" and when would that decision be made known?

Personally, I cannot see how any act by an anti-pope would be, ultimately, "for the common good" and certainly not an appointment of a "bishop" since any such he would appoint would have to be totally in league with him, both politically and theologically.

Can you point to any real Catholic bishop who was so appointed? I certainly don't know of any.

As you so aptly pointed out earlier in this discussion, and as I have pointed out at least once here, supplied jurisdiction applies only to the Sacrament of Penance, and I cannot find any other place in Canon Law where it is mentioned with regard to other authoritative acts of the hierarchy.

Can you?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
OK. So, from what I can see, you are simply speculating about this entire issue, then?


Ken, I can only imagine that you haven't read all of the previous material presented on this question, right here, and especially not the book on the subject by Miaskiewicz. No, I'm not speculating.

Ken Gordon wrote:
After all, who is to finally decide whether any of those sorts of acts are "for the common good" and when would that decision be made known?


This is exactly the same argument that those who don't understand Epikeia offer. They say, "who's to judge when a law is not to be obeyed?" and think that this is an argument against a well-defined and absolutely true and sound principle.

Likewise, then I ask you, who's to judge that a priest, non-diocesan, without faculties in your diocese, can validly hear your confession, here and now?

Ken Gordon wrote:
Personally, I cannot see how any act by an anti-pope would be, ultimately, "for the common good" and certainly not an appointment of a "bishop" since any such he would appoint would have to be totally in league with him, both politically and theologically.


Well, the acceptance of the resignation of de Castro Mayer was not for the common good. He was retired so that a Modernist could replace him. I don't think this is a controversial judgement, it's obvious to all.

On the question of "appointments" which you seem to be switching the discussion to, the only appintments in view, by definition, are those which objectively are for the common good. That excludes heretics appointed to offices. Such are barred by divine law from valid appointment to an office. So we are talking about orthodox men, appointed by Montini, in 1965, for example. Were there none? Let the opposition prove that. Just as they have to prove that all of the Pius XII appointees have validly retired.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Can you point to any real Catholic bishop who was so appointed? I certainly don't know of any.


How do you define "real Catholic"?

Ken Gordon wrote:
As you so aptly pointed out earlier in this discussion, and as I have pointed out at least once here, supplied jurisdiction applies only to the Sacrament of Penance, and I cannot find any other place in Canon Law where it is mentioned with regard to other authoritative acts of the hierarchy.

Can you?


Yes, I can, and no, I didn't say what you ascribe to me. Read Miaskiewicz. He says that in principle, all acts of jurisdiction may attract a supply under the conditions of common error or positive and probable (not "positive OR probable" as the Zirconias erroneously translate!) doubt of fact or law.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Supplied jurisdiction as it affects trad bishops (and priests) would appear to be limited to the validity of confessions.


So, supplied jurisdiction as it affects the anti-popes is a different matter, then?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Likewise, then I ask you, who's to judge that a priest, non-diocesan, without faculties in your diocese, can validly hear your confession, here and now?

I forgot to answer this question: the answer is, of course, the priest himself.

It depends on the circumstances, obviously, and Canon Law covers those circumstances when such an action would be allowable, possible, correct and valid. Any well-educated priest would know when, where, and why he could do such a thing. Most of those allowable circumstances revolve around imminent danger of death, of course.

The section in Canon Law covering the Sacrament of Penance lays many of those things out very clearly.

But, I have not yet found anything in my reading that says that any ecclesiastical or jurisdictional actions of an heretical anti-pope are valid, whether ecclesia supplet or not.

And, no, I have not yet read everything presented here about this issue (of supplied jurisdiction). However, I really doubt if Miaskiewicz addressed anything like our present situation. In addition, if Miaskiewicz is the only author you have presented here in support of your contention that the Church supplies necessary jurisdiction to an heretical antipope, I would be immediately suspicious.

I would guess that you have addressed the issue that if an heretical anti-pope, who is not even a member of the Church, can be supplied necessary jurisdiction for certain of his ecclesiastical actions "for the good of the Church", what is to prevent a layman from the same sorts of things, for the same reason?

I believe you are stretching Miaskiewicz' teachings on this subject well beyond what the Church would ever consider its limits.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:07 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Supplied jurisdiction as it affects trad bishops (and priests) would appear to be limited to the validity of confessions.


So, supplied jurisdiction as it affects the anti-popes is a different matter, then?


Not necessarily, Ken, it comes down to what acts they choose to perform. Non-popes perform all sort of acts that require jurisdiction for validity, such as appointing men to vacant sees. Trad bishops as a rule simply don't perform such acts. Not one that I'm aware of has claimed a vacant see, for example, and proceeded to appoint men to vacant parishes, erect new parishes, etc. The only act that our priests and bishops perform that does require jurisdiction for validity (not merely for liceity) is the hearing of confessions.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Likewise, then I ask you, who's to judge that a priest, non-diocesan, without faculties in your diocese, can validly hear your confession, here and now?

I forgot to answer this question: the answer is, of course, the priest himself.


I don't agree, insofar as that in my experience priests do not seem to be well informed of these matters. The general outlook could be summarised as, "I've been told I have supplied jurisdiction for confessions so they will be valid," and that's that. Their understanding of why this might be is frighteningly inadequate. Fortunately, Canon 209 steps in and solves the problem because (largely due to the attitude of our priests) there is always common error in trad circles, so the confessions are valid for that reason if no other!

Ken Gordon wrote:
It depends on the circumstances, obviously, and Canon Law covers those circumstances when such an action would be allowable, possible, correct and valid. Any well-educated priest would know when, where, and why he could do such a thing. Most of those allowable circumstances revolve around imminent danger of death, of course.


Well, I agree that danger of death is the key principle, but that's not what our priests think! Ask a few and see what you get.


Ken Gordon wrote:
And, no, I have not yet read everything presented here about this issue (of supplied jurisdiction). However, I really doubt if Miaskiewicz addressed anything like our present situation. In addition, if Miaskiewicz is the only author you have presented here in support of your contention that the Church supplies necessary jurisdiction to an heretical antipope, I would be immediately suspicious.


Your suspicion does not concern me, Ken. I have an authority. I could probably find plenty of others, but one would need them before one looked, right? Miaskiewicz has the merit of being a lengthy tome devoted entirely to the question of supplied jurisdiction. That is, unlike any commentary on canon law as a whole, in which there will be a few paragraphs at most addressing individual canons, here we have a complete treatise analysing the subject ex professo.

Now, why do you define it as "the Church supplies necessary jurisdiction to an heretical antipope" when the fact that he's a heretic is utterly irrelevant to the question, except that it's the reason he doesn't have ordinary jurisdiction. Your inclusion of it in this sentence suggests that you think that the acts of a heretic cannot attract the supply of jurisdiction, but that's not true. If you think it is, then please find an authority for it. I do not think you will find one. You will find plenty of authorities which assert that heretics cannot possess habitual jurisdiction, but none which state that their otherwise invalid acts cannot attract supplied jurisdiction, given the requisite conditions.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Likewise, then I ask you, who's to judge that a priest, non-diocesan, without faculties in your diocese, can validly hear your confession, here and now?

I forgot to answer this question: the answer is, of course, the priest himself.


I don't agree, insofar as that in my experience priests do not seem to be well informed of these matters.

Well, your experience is not the same as mine. But then again, as I recall, your experience has primarily been with SSPX priests, who, in my opinion, have never really been thoroughly educated, and most, most certainly, have very little experience yet.

John Lane wrote:
Well, I agree that danger of death is the key principle, but that's not what our priests think! Ask a few and see what you get.

Oh, I have, John... the result was as I stated above. However, I have dealt, primarily, with very old and very experienced priests. In fact, the priest I most recently asked about this question is 87 years old.

John Lane wrote:
Your suspicion does not concern me, Ken.

Yes, I understand that, John. In fact, my questions have never seemed to be of concern to you.

However, let me try to be a bit more clear why I find your insistence that the Church supplies jurisdiction to the antipopes in some of the situations you have mentioned in this discussion to be both unnecessary and flawed.

First, there is the example of the old priest I just mentioned: his NO bishop has treated him horribly, threatened to defrock him, and publicly denounce him as a sexual pervert, which he most certainly has never been and is not now. This "bishop" has forbidden him to wear his Roman collar in public, has forbidden him to be buried with his brother priests, and to be buried in his Roman collar, and, in general has treated him as though he was the absolutely worst of priests, and all simply because this priest refuses to offer the NO "mass" any longer, will only offer the Tridentine Mass, and insists on serving "those schismatics" (meaning folks like us).

When I insisted to this priest that his NO "bishop" had, in fact, no real authority over him, was not even a valid bishop, and in fact, was most likely still a layman, he told me, "Yes. But the effect is the same as if he was a true bishop with jurisdiction."

Thus, I find your attempted application of the Church's supplied jurisdiction to actions of the antipopes to be convoluted and unnecessary.

Although I have no idea if the following was included in your discussion of this issue, there is the case of Bishop Castro Mayer who was retired by the reigning antipope. Your explanation seems to me to be that the Church supplied the necessary jurisdiction to make this action both legal and effective, when I see it simply as an error of fact by Castro Mayer in that he believed, wrongly, that the one who retired him had the right and authority to do so, and thus acted accordingly.

As I have stated repeatedly here, I am a firm believer in the KISS(*) principle, and I also believe that principle applies most often in such matters. There is simply no need to dig deep into theological tomes for an explanation and support for some actions when common sense and the simplest explanation is most probably valid enough.

(* Keep It Simple, Stupid)

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
Well, your experience is not the same as mine. But then again, as I recall, your experience has primarily been with SSPX priests, who, in my opinion, have never really been thoroughly educated, and most, most certainly, have very little experience yet.


Ouch!

Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Your suspicion does not concern me, Ken.

Yes, I understand that, John. In fact, my questions have never seemed to be of concern to you.


No, I'm merely not going to let you say that you are "suspicious" of an idea for which I have an authority, because I only have one, when you have none! Go back and read what you wrote, Ken.

Now, the following doesn't make sense to me. You don't appear to be arguing against my view, but in favour of it. I agree that de Castro Mayer's resignation was invalid, and therefore he remained Bishop of Campos. I thought I said so above ["It matters not that a man believes that he has resigned, if his resignation is invalid then he still holds the office he thinks he has given up. A clear example of this was Bishop de Castro Mayer, who in my view manifestly remained the bishop of Campos until his death in 1991, despite his attempted resignation in 1981." And again: viewtopic.php?p=15894#p15894 ] (and I've certainly said so many times before). Are you reading my replies?

Ken Gordon wrote:
However, let me try to be a bit more clear why I find your insistence that the Church supplies jurisdiction to the antipopes in some of the situations you have mentioned in this discussion to be both unnecessary and flawed.

First, there is the example of the old priest I just mentioned: his NO bishop has treated him horribly, threatened to defrock him, and publicly denounce him as a sexual pervert, which he most certainly has never been and is not now. This "bishop" has forbidden him to wear his Roman collar in public, has forbidden him to be buried with his brother priests, and to be buried in his Roman collar, and, in general has treated him as though he was the absolutely worst of priests, and all simply because this priest refuses to offer the NO "mass" any longer, will only offer the Tridentine Mass, and insists on serving "those schismatics" (meaning folks like us).

When I insisted to this priest that his NO "bishop" had, in fact, no real authority over him, was not even a valid bishop, and in fact, was most likely still a layman, he told me, "Yes. But the effect is the same as if he was a true bishop with jurisdiction."


So he's mistaken. Do you agree with him?

Ken Gordon wrote:
Thus, I find your attempted application of the Church's supplied jurisdiction to actions of the antipopes to be convoluted and unnecessary.


This appears not to follow. What is its logical connection with the story about the priest and his bishop?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
Well, your experience is not the same as mine. But then again, as I recall, your experience has primarily been with SSPX priests, who, in my opinion, have never really been thoroughly educated, and most, most certainly, have very little experience yet.

Ouch!

Why "ouch!" ? I am not even hinting that the SSPX priests are not, in general, good people, or that there is even any question about the validity of the orders of those ordained by Lefebvre or his bishops. I am simply saying that they are, for the most part, inexperienced. This is a simple fact and is not meant to be perjorative.

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Your suspicion does not concern me, Ken.

Yes, I understand that, John. In fact, my questions have never seemed to be of concern to you.


No, I'm merely not going to let you say that you are "suspicious" of an idea for which I have an authority, because I only have one, when you have none! Go back and read what you wrote, Ken.

John, I don't need to go back and read it: I know what I said, why I said it, and I meant it.

John Lane wrote:
Now, the following doesn't make sense to me. You don't appear to be arguing against my view, but in favour of it. I agree that de Castro Mayer's resignation was invalid, and therefore he remained Bishop of Campos. I thought I said so above ["It matters not that a man believes that he has resigned, if his resignation is invalid then he still holds the office he thinks he has given up. A clear example of this was Bishop de Castro Mayer, who in my view manifestly remained the bishop of Campos until his death in 1991, despite his attempted resignation in 1981." And again: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 894#p15894 ] (and I've certainly said so many times before). Are you reading my replies?

Yes. However, I find this attitude of yours vis-a-vis Castro Mayer to be inconsistent with your insistence that the anti-popes receive jurisdiction for some ecclesiastical acts, yet won't apply that same idea of authority to the act of retiring Castro Mayer. If the antipopes have jurisdiction to appoint bishops, then they have jurisdiction to retire one.

And I must also ask you: what is the entire POINT of your insistence that the antipopes are given "supplied jurisdiction" for certain of their ecclesiastical acts? I see this entire issue as something we should not even begin to discuss here since we do not, and probably never will, know enough to understand the truth of this matter. Furthermore, it can only serve to confuse those Catholics who are searching for the truth. In my considered opinion, this issue should be dropped and never referred to again. It is just plain dangerous.

John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
When I insisted to this priest that his NO "bishop" had, in fact, no real authority over him, was not even a valid bishop, and in fact, was most likely still a layman, he told me, "Yes. But the effect is the same as if he was a true bishop with jurisdiction."

So he's mistaken. Do you agree with him?

Yes, I agree with him, and no, he is not mistaken, but not for the reasons you probably think.

I agree with his assessment in this: that "bishop" appears to all and sundry, except we very few who have been given the grace by God to know better, to be a real bishop, with valid orders, and with valid authority from those whom most Catholics today still regard as true popes.

Therefore his actions with regard to our old priest would appear to be completely consistent and valid in the eyes of the world. The result, the effects, in the world, on our old priest would still be as identical as if this "bishop" was a real bishop.

Our old priest would be shunned by his peers, would appear to all the world to be as evil as this cursed man accuses him to be, he would lose much influence for good on those still in the NO, etc. Do I need to add any more details? I think not.

So, yes, I agree with him when he says, "..the effect is the same as if he were a real bishop..."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
Yes. However, I find this attitude of yours vis-a-vis Castro Mayer to be inconsistent with your insistence that the anti-popes receive jurisdiction for some ecclesiastical acts, yet won't apply that same idea of authority to the act of retiring Castro Mayer. If the antipopes have jurisdiction to appoint bishops, then they have jurisdiction to retire one.


And I've told you why that isn't the case. The key principle is that jurisdiction is supplied for the common good. This is why, for example, the erroneous belief of a sole person, thinking that a priest without faculties actually has them, will not affect validity (i.e. one person's error is not grounds for the supply of jurisdiction), whereas if there is common error the confessions (even if there is only one actual confession made) are valid.

Now, accepting de Castro Mayer's resignation in order to replace him with a heretic was not an act that was even arguably for the common good, therefore nobody would claim that it would have attracted the supply of jurisdiction. However, it is not true that every act of the heretical antipopes was necessarily contrary to the common good. Just to take one example at random, because it came up here the other day - the condemnation of the "Divine Mercy" devotion under John XXIII. That was manifestly for the common good. And there was most certainly common error about John XXIII, on the hypothesis that he was not truly pope. The same was true of Paul VI, et al.

So of the two conditions - common error and an act requiring jurisdiction which is truly for the common good - you have one manifestly present and the other potentially present on many occasions, each of which would have to be examined on its merits. That changes the picture which many sedes have in their minds, and very much changes it for the good. It informs them of true Catholic principles, which is always good, it reminds them that the situation is intrinsically complex, when the tendency of the human mind is to over-simplify distressing things, and it undermines the best argument that sedeplenists have against our views.

I have no doubt that a good number of the bishops appointed by Paul VI, for example, were Catholics when they were appointed. No doubt many of them were not, as well, but that doesn't affect the fact that many of them were. And in any case, the logical landscape is this: those who say that this is wrong, are required to show why his acts could not attract the supply of jurisdiction (something you hinted at above - "heretical antipopes" - but could not sustain) or alternatively show that each and every episcopal appointment made by Paul VI was of a non-Catholic.

Ken Gordon wrote:
And I must also ask you: what is the entire POINT of your insistence that the antipopes are given "supplied jurisdiction" for certain of their ecclesiastical acts? I see this entire issue as something we should not even begin to discuss here since we do not, and probably never will, know enough to understand the truth of this matter.


The point is lost on you because you're not a sedevacantist and you're not interested in it. It's a doctrinal matter and it relates to the sedevacantist theory of the crisis.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Furthermore, it can only serve to confuse those Catholics who are searching for the truth. In my considered opinion, this issue should be dropped and never referred to again. It is just plain dangerous.


There's nothing dangerous about it. It's a matter of Christian doctrine, actually. The importance of it today is precisely that trads - especially sedes - display a dangerous tendency (i.e. truly dangerous, doctrinally) to regard their bishops as Successors of the Apostles, and you have Fr. Cekada for example saying publicly that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church consists of Bishop Dolan and the other (un-named) traditional bishops. This is gravely erroneous, but it's just a clear statement of what many trads, however vaguely, actually think.

The Catholic Church has a hierarchy. Any theory of the crisis has to be able to say where it is.

Ken Gordon wrote:
So, yes, I agree with him when he says, "..the effect is the same as if he were a real bishop..."


So do I. Yet it has nothing whatsoever to do with jurisdiction or the supply of it, as far as I can tell, so I still don't see why it was raised.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Fine, John, you continue as you are doing. You still do not see my point. I get the very distinct impression by your, and others', arguments, that you believe the Church, and Trads, can exist just fine, and indefinitely, without a True Pope.

I violently (to use your own word) and completely disagree!

The Church simply cannot exist for very long without a True Pope...and 50+ years and continuing without one is, to my mind, impossible.

If your "supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church" applies to every antipope, then it also applies to every layman, whether a Catholic or not. This is simply neither logical nor reasonable.

From what I can see, you have taken the writings of Fr. Maiskewski (sp?) on the subject of supplied jurisdiction and have interpreted those and applied them to a situation which he would have never foreseen, nor agreed with.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
Fine, John, you continue as you are doing. You still do not see my point. I get the very distinct impression by your, and others', arguments, that you believe the Church, and Trads, can exist just fine, and indefinitely, without a True Pope.

Hi Ken,

I don't think the point of John's arguments on this subject is to address whether or not the Church can exist indefinitely without a true pope. I think he's simply started with the fact that, at the very least, a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction must exist; and then he's explored one possible way this is possible in an extended sedevecantist situation where the man the world views as the pope is not the pope. I find his arguments regarding supplied jurisdiction to an anti-pope, for certain acts, to be sound and not at all an exagerration of the Church teachings on supplied jurisdiction. This is obviously an argument for how the Church could currently exist without a true Pope, but I don't think it's meant to argue that the Church can exist indefinitely without a true Pope.

Anther possibillity is that a true Pope exists, that most of the world is currently unaware of. I think this is definitely a possiblity, and one that's fascinating to contemplate and hope for. However, there is no evidence of this true Pope, as of yet, so I think we need to be open to the other possibilities that explain how the Church hierarchy could exist today.

Ken Gordon wrote:
If your "supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church" applies to every antipope, then it also applies to every layman, whether a Catholic or not. This is simply neither logical nor reasonable.

In what situations are you thinking supplied jurisdiction could be supplied to a layman based on common error? I think it's obvious that the common error has existed in the Church that, after the death of Pope Pius XII, anti-popes were actually true popes.


Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Reading Miaskewicz, and my book on Canon Law, I find the following interesting items.

Canon 118
Only clerics can obtain powers, whether of orders or of jurisdiction, and benefices or ecclesiastical pensions.

From Miaskiewicz:

"Thus Huguccio (†l210)19 was the first to exclude from the comprehension of the term “jurisdiction” the notion of power to administer temporal goods. In this manner “jurisdiction” received the limited signification of a power within a spiritual orbit, of a power which extended to acts that were dependent upon the power of Orders for their exercise.

C. SUBJECTS OF JURISDICTION
Under the common law of the Church clerics alone can obtain and exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. By definition a cleric is one who has been assigned to the Divine ministry by the conferring of tonsure. It is this enrollment into the clerical state which renders him capable of the reception of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus laics are excluded from participation in the jurisdictional power of the Church by the express, though implicit, provision of canon 118. This provision of the Code is not new but had its source in pre-Code custom and practice.

However, returning to the cleric, who after all is the ordinary recipient of jurisdictional power, the reader should keep a few other points clearly in mind. The censured, heretics and schismatics are not fit subjects of jurisdiction, inasmuch as their transgression has placed them outside the pale of active membership in the Church. Such persons are always forbidden to exercise jurisdictional power under the sanction that such an exercise will be an unlawful act. However, not always are their acts invalid. As canons 2265, § 1, n.2, 2275, and 2283 explicitly state, (which see) it is only when such a person is a vitandus, or when a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been executed against him that his jurisdictional acts will be invalid."

"Canon 2265, § 1, n.2,
§ 1. Anyone excommunicated:

2.° Cannot obtain dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other duties in the Church.

Canon 2275.

Those personally interdicted:

2.° Are prohibited from ministering, confecting, or receiving Sacraments and Sacramentals...

Canon 2283

Those things established for excommunication in Canon 2265 apply also to suspension."

These Canons obviously apply only to the normal duties of a cleric, and do not apply to ecclesiastical acts such as the appointment of bishops.

Again, from Miaskiewicz:

"The matter of jurisdiction, then, is very important. First, the necessity for it supplies the Church with strict sanctions against usurpers and incompetents.

Without the usual test of the candidate and the subsequent approval by a responsible superior, the Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction."

From only this little bit I have been able to read out of the 350 odd pages of Miaskiewicz' Doctoral Thesis, it is quite clear to me, at least, that there is no possible act of the anti-popes which would gain supplied jurisdiction, and that thus every such ecclesiastical act has zero force.

And please don't give me the specious argument that they have not been declared vitandus and thus they are covered by one of the Canons mentioned above. Since the true Hierarchy of the Church is presently unavailable, that argument must, at least, be held in abeyance until such time as the Church is restored.

Furthermore, there are two other items of interest vis-a-vis Canon Law: 1) no single Canon stands on its own, but must be interpreted with regard to every other Canon which addresses the same or similar issues, and 2) no one is competent to judge his own case. Both of these were insisted upon by Cardinal Gasparri and seconded by St. Pius X.

Lastly, we should keep in mind that Miaskiewicz' thesis is just that: a Doctoral Thesis submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for his doctoral degree in Canon Law. As far as I have been able to determine, his writings are not part of the dogma of the Church.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Dear Ken,

Ken Gordon wrote:
Canon 118
Only clerics can obtain powers, whether of orders or of jurisdiction, and benefices or ecclesiastical pensions.


That's right - only clerics can obtain - a clear reference to habitual, not supplied, jurisdiction. Other canons, such as canons 209 and 882, deal with the supply of jurisdiction.

Ken Gordon wrote:
From Miaskiewicz:

"Thus Huguccio (†l210)19 was the first to exclude from the comprehension of the term “jurisdiction” the notion of power to administer temporal goods. In this manner “jurisdiction” received the limited signification of a power within a spiritual orbit, of a power which extended to acts that were dependent upon the power of Orders for their exercise.


If you are suggesting that this means that only those with valid orders can possess habitual jurisdiction, or only those with valid orders can exercise jurisdiction, whether habitual or supplied, then you are entirely mistaken. But you prove that yourself below.

Ken Gordon wrote:
C. SUBJECTS OF JURISDICTION
Under the common law of the Church clerics alone can obtain and exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. By definition a cleric is one who has been assigned to the Divine ministry by the conferring of tonsure. It is this enrollment into the clerical state which renders him capable of the reception of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.


This only applies to habitual jurisdiction, of course, but it plainly states that the possession of valid orders is utterly irrelevant, from the perspective of the validity of jurisdictional acts. It's the clerical state that matters, not holy orders. Agreed?


Ken Gordon wrote:
Thus laics are excluded from participation in the jurisdictional power of the Church by the express, though implicit, provision of canon 118. This provision of the Code is not new but had its source in pre-Code custom and practice.


This doesn't touch on our controversy, since it isn't dealing with the distinction between those with and those without valid orders, but solely between those who have entered the clerical state (by tonsure) and those who have not. Our public heretics are all clerics.

Ken Gordon wrote:
However, returning to the cleric, who after all is the ordinary recipient of jurisdictional power, the reader should keep a few other points clearly in mind. The censured, heretics and schismatics are not fit subjects of jurisdiction, inasmuch as their transgression has placed them outside the pale of active membership in the Church. Such persons are always forbidden to exercise jurisdictional power under the sanction that such an exercise will be an unlawful act. However, not always are their acts invalid. As canons 2265, § 1, n.2, 2275, and 2283 explicitly state, (which see) it is only when such a person is a vitandus, or when a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been executed against him that his jurisdictional acts will be invalid."


Usually (but not always) unlawful, and certainly not always invalid. Indeed, canon 882 specifically authorises some acts which would otherwise be both unlawful and invalid.

Further, as you have noticed, Miaskiewicz says that only the jurisdictional acts of condemned heretics would be invalid. I don't agree with this, necessarily, but it is worth noting that Miaskiewicz goes much further than anything I'd say.

Ken Gordon wrote:
"Canon 2265, § 1, n.2,
§ 1. Anyone excommunicated:

2.° Cannot obtain dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other duties in the Church.


"Obtain" is the key word - this is purely about possessing stable positions to which are attached benefits or powers. It does not bear upon the supply of jurisdiction. Indeed, jurisdiction is only potentially supplied when habitual jurisdiction is absent.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Canon 2275.

Those personally interdicted:

2.° Are prohibited from ministering, confecting, or receiving Sacraments and Sacramentals...


Except for in danger of death, for example, and furthermore, prohibited does not necessarily imply invalidity.

Ken Gordon wrote:

Again, from Miaskiewicz:

"The matter of jurisdiction, then, is very important. First, the necessity for it supplies the Church with strict sanctions against usurpers and incompetents.

Without the usual test of the candidate and the subsequent approval by a responsible superior, the Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction."


Ken, try and get back from this and take a wholistic view. Let's say that this text means that the acts of an invalidly elected "pope" could not benefit from the supply of jurisdiction, because there is no Roman Pontiff in existence who can supply jurisdiction where it is wanting. I do not for a moment accept this notion, I think it's entirely mistaken, but let's say that it is accurate for the sake of the argument. Where does this take us? It takes us to a very strange place, which is that during every vacancy of the Holy See the supply of jurisdiction ceases - that is, that canons 882 and 209 cease to have effect. But this is a total novelty, found nowhere in the books. So it's wrong.

In any case for you there is a Roman Pontiff in existence, if hidden, so that this text is beside the point. If the Roman Pontiff actively (but unconsciously) supplies jurisdiction so that during a vacancy there can be no supply, then your hidden pope can be the source of the jurisdiction supplied to priests today under canons such as 882 and 209, and also to Montini in order to validate any acts of his which were objectively for the common good.

Ken Gordon wrote:

From only this little bit I have been able to read out of the 350 odd pages of Miaskiewicz' Doctoral Thesis, it is quite clear to me, at least, that there is no possible act of the anti-popes which would gain supplied jurisdiction, and that thus every such ecclesiastical act has zero force.


I hope you can see that your conclusion here does not begin to follow from the texts that you have posted.

Ken Gordon wrote:
And please don't give me the specious argument that they have not been declared vitandus and thus they are covered by one of the Canons mentioned above. Since the true Hierarchy of the Church is presently unavailable, that argument must, at least, be held in abeyance until such time as the Church is restored.


I don't understand. Reduced to a more formal form, your argument would appear to be:

Only the hierarchy can declare somebody vitandus,
But the hierarchy is unavailable,
Therefore anybody that I think would have been declared vitandus had the hierarchy been present is actually truly vitandus anyway with all of the consequences of that status, including invalidity of jurisdictional acts.

Obviously that's absurd, so I must be missing something.

It's also worth highlighting that if and when somebody is declared vitandus (i.e. named by the Holy See as somebody to be avoided by all of the faithful) then there is very unlikely to be common error about his status. It's precisely because of the lack of such activity on the part of the Holy See that common error can and does exist, and this has consequences in law, as you can see from these texts.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Lastly, we should keep in mind that Miaskiewicz' thesis is just that: a Doctoral Thesis submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for his doctoral degree in Canon Law. As far as I have been able to determine, his writings are not part of the dogma of the Church.


Yes, of course, but they're a lot more useful than, er, nothing at all, right? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Miaskiewicz wrote:
Without the usual test of the candidate and the subsequent approval by a responsible superior, the Code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and of law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction."


I should also say what my own view of this is, for the sake of clarity if nothing else.

This text says that all jurisdiction emanates from the Roman Pontiff. That is, that he is the sole earthly source of jurisdiction. This is true, and also theologically certain. That is, the Roman Pontiff not only has the primacy of jurisdiction, but also that all inferior authorities receive their jurisdiction from him as from its source. See this article by Mons. Fenton for further information: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... f=11&t=207

Consequently, this text from Miaskiewicz states, that when the Church supplies jurisdiction, then it is really the Roman Pontiff supplying. And it goes on to say that this is because all common law originates with him. The supply of jurisdiction is authorised and regulated by the law established by the Roman Pontiff.

So that is my own position, and I think it is clearly expressed by this text. The law is the proximate source of supplied jurisdiction; the law has been established by the Roman Pontiff, who is its remote source. This explains how jurisdiction can be supplied even during a vacancy of the Holy See.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
This only applies to habitual jurisdiction, of course, but it plainly states that the possession of valid orders is utterly irrelevant, from the perspective of the validity of jurisdictional acts. It's the clerical state that matters, not holy orders. Agreed?

This doesn't touch on our controversy, since it isn't dealing with the distinction between those with and those without valid orders, but solely between those who have entered the clerical state (by tonsure) and those who have not. Our public heretics are all clerics.

I don't see how they could be. They were "ordained" in a doubtful rite, and "consecrated" in a certainly invalid one. They aren't bishops, and most likely not even priests. And for that matter, they, or at least most of them, aren't even Catholics.

If such "jurisdiction" applies to the Novus Ordo heretics, would it also apply to Anglican and Lutheran clergy post-Reformation? From what you say, your answer would appear to be yes, since they're "clerics" too, just like the Novus Ordo "clerics".


Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Brendan wrote:
John Lane wrote:
it isn't dealing with the distinction between those with and those without valid orders, but solely between those who have entered the clerical state (by tonsure) and those who have not. Our public heretics are all clerics.

I don't see how they could be. They were "ordained" in a doubtful rite, and "consecrated" in a certainly invalid one. They aren't bishops, and most likely not even priests. And for that matter, they, or at least most of them, aren't even Catholics.


Brendan, your approach to this is exactly that of the Donatists. They argued that baptism, by which one enters the Church, cannot be valid when administered outside the Church. Hard to answer that argument, right? I mean, how can the door of the Church validly be confected outside? The more one considers the nature of baptism, the stronger the Donatist argument will become. In fact, the answer was, ultimately, the practice of the Church, which not to re-baptise those entering the Church from heretical sects, having been baptised there. St. Augustine gives dozens of other reasons to justify the Catholic position, but really these are all arguments of convenience, assisting a doubting person to accept the truth, rather than demonstrations, which in such a matter would be impossible, given that it's a supernatural matter, not observable by the senses, and the reason we know is because God has revealed it.

In the present case you have to say why a man is incapable of exercising supplied jurisdiction. We have a good reason why he cannot possess habitual jurisdiction - he left the Church by his own choice, by heresy publicly professed. But that doesn't mean he cannot act validly for the good of the Church. Let's return to our example of baptism, which is not a matter involving jurisdiction, but sacramental validity, yet the parallel of arguments is very close. I remind you of your own argument:
Brendan wrote:
They aren't bishops, and most likely not even priests. And for that matter, they, or at least most of them, aren't even Catholics.


And the Jewish doctor who baptises validly when requested by a mother in fear for her newborn's life? He isn't a priest, he isn't even a Catholic. The "common sense" answer would be that he cannot make somebody a Catholic. But he can, so that's that.

In doing so he acts for the good of the individual but also for the common good, of the Church and even the world.

Some theologians - quite a few - argue against Bellarmine's straight-forward position on heresy and jurisdiction. They do so on the basis of the practice of the Church - i.e. that she tends to regard the jurisdictional acts of bishops accused of heresy as valid until and unless they are tried and condemned by the Church. My answer to all such arguments is that these factual data can be explained in the light of supplied jurisdiction. That the Church, conscious of her own law granting jurisdiction per modum actus in case of common error or positive and probable doubt of fact or law, is not worried about the validity of the acts of one who has been accused of heresy, and may well publicly already be a heretic and therefore have lost his office, at least while there can be positive and probable doubt about his case or while there remains common error. That is, she is not worried about those acts of his which are objectively for the common good. So that good priest he appointed to a parish last week, is really the pastor of that parish, etc. But should the bishop - think Nestorius - purport to excommunicate somebody for opposing his own public heresy, then the Church would point out that the bishop has no power to do so, having lost his office and the associated habitual jurisdiction by his own choice. Jurisdiction would not - could not - be supplied for such an act, and it would remain irremediably invalid. St. Robert Bellarmine: "And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'"


Brendan wrote:
If such "jurisdiction" applies to the Novus Ordo heretics, would it also apply to Anglican and Lutheran clergy post-Reformation? From what you say, your answer would appear to be yes, since they're "clerics" too, just like the Novus Ordo "clerics".


The same principles would apply, yes, but you must distinguish between before a new sect was condemned and after. After what date did mere membership in the publicly recognised clergy in England prove that a man was not a Catholic? Further, after what date was the reception of tonsure in say, the Archdiocese of Canterbury, an act signifying entrance into the clergy of an heretical sect and not what it had been before, an act signifying entrance into the clerical state in the Catholic Church, with all of the canonical effects of that? I don't say that this is a crucial question, but it illustrates the problem we have in all such cases of incipient heresy, where the Church has not yet judged. There's a lot of grey, a lot of doubt about "fact or law", in such circumstances as the corruption of the English church and the situation after Vatican II.

In my reading it is quite common - although I'm told it remains a minority opinion - to regard the confessions of the Greek schismatics as valid by supplied jurisdiction. So, they can do nothing by habitual jurisdiction, which they cannot possess, but certain acts of theirs can be valid by virtue of the supply of jurisdiction. Now, let's say that this opinion is wrong. How would we prove it? I cannot. I've seen no argument against it, anywhere, by anybody. The arguments of Bellarmine and co. are all about habitual jurisdiction, and rest upon the question of membership in the Church. They do not touch this question. And the practice of the Church is a powerful argument for that view. She established Canon 188,4, yet she displays no concern that it might result in invalid confessions, etc.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
A piece of data, from da Silveira:

Quote:
...it is commonly admitted that the schismatic eastern rite bishops (they are also heretics) possess a jurisdiction which the Popes tacitly concede to them*

*See Herve, Man Theol. Dogm., vol. I, p. 449,. n. 453, note 1, and bibliography there indicated.


This is da Silveira's weakest topic, in my opinion. He does not distinguish between habitual and supplied jurisdiction. Consequently he suggests that the Orientals may have habitual jurisdiction when in fact they are only said to exercise, per modum actus, supplied jurisdiction.

I can't find my Volume I of Herve! Perhaps somebody else has a copy handy?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:13 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
The law is the proximate source of supplied jurisdiction; the law has been established by the Roman Pontiff, who is its remote source. This explains how jurisdiction can be supplied even during a vacancy of the Holy See.


Some confirmation of this view (Miaskiewicz p. 114.):

Miaskiewicz wrote:
In virtue of the fact that all jurisdictional power is divided into power that is ordinary or delegated,(13) the supplied power of canon 209 must be regarded as a delegation from the law (delegatio a iure). Such is the commonly accepted view of the authorities.(14)

13. Canon 197, § 1; Kearney, The principles of delegation, p. 61.
14. Cf. e.g., Kelly, The jurisdiction of the confessor, p. 117. Noldin-Schmitt, Theologia moralis (21. ed., Oeniponte, 1932), III, n. 345, 1 (hereafter this work will be referred to simply as Summa); Cappello, De sacramentis, II, n. 486; Wernz-Vidal, Ius canonicum, II, n. 379; J. Stocchiero, “De jurisdictione vicariorum paroecialium,” - Jus. Pont., XI (1931), 221.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:23 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Some more from Miaskiewicz (pp. 225-227). Note that he explicitly refers to loss of office under canon 188 (which he describes, correctly, as a "tacit renunciation"), and says that in such cases there would be common error and therefore the supply of jurisdiction.

Quote:
Ordinary power is that which is attached to an office by the law itself. This power may be proper or vicarious according as the agent exercises it in his own name or in the name of the one whose vicar he is. But in either event it is a permanent power, at least in the sense that the incumbent thereof enjoys an abiding title to the same unless and until he be deprived of it either by law or by the decision of his legitimate superior.6 Certain actions are presumed under the law to signify an incumbent’s tacit renunciation of an office.7 In like manner certain criminal actions - and they are few - bring upon their perpetrator an ipso facto deprivation of their offices,8 and certain other actions - and these are many - carry with them a similar loss of office which loss, however, is not sustained until declared by the proper superior.9 When an ordinary deprives a cleric of an office, the ordinary must very carefully distinguish the character of the office. And, according as that office is a removable one or an irremovable one, the ordinary must follow out the prescripts of the law.10

There has never been, nor is there, any question in the minds of authors as to the applicability of canon 209 to the jurisdictional acts of one falsely believed by way of common error to possess ordinary power. Prescinding for the present from the dispute as to whether or not an officium in the strict sense is a term correlative with ordinary power, there is no question that in the case of ordinary power there is present an officium which is both public and permanent and concerning the possession of which even prudent men can be deceived. And regardless of whether the incumbent of such an office retain his position and continue to exercise his official duties in good faith or in bad, objectively his jurisdictional actions would be a source of real peril to the common good were they not validated from the very moment of their performance, by the suppletory principle of canon 209. The raison d’être of this canon may be said to be especially fulfilled in instances of the exercise of such power.


6 Canon 192, § 1.
7 Canon 188.
8 Canon 2343.
9 Cf, e. g., canons 2177, n. 3; 2180; 2181; 2314, § 1, n. 2; 2331, §2; 2324; 2336, § 1; 2336, § 2; 2340, §2; 2343, §2; 2345; 2346; 2354, § 2; 2359, §§2-3; 2368, § 1; 2384; 2394, n. 2; 2401; 2403; 2405.
10 Canon 192, §§ 2-3. Cf. also canons 2157-2161, § 1; 2147-2153; 2401.


I don't think that there can be any reasonable objection to the applicability of the suppletory principle to our circumstances, unless somebody can show that the condition of "heretic" constitutes an additional obstacle preventing the supply of jurisdiction validating acts it would otherwise validate, and nobody can show any authority for such a notion. Indeed, such a notion would appear to be utterly incompatible with the practice of the Church and the doctrine of the best authorities, especially Bellarmine and his school, who universally regard occult heretics (i.e. true, malicious, mortal sinners against the virtue of faith, men who do not have the faith any longer, but only pretend to do so for other reasons) as capable of maintaining ordinary (i.e. habitual) jurisdiction. The reason, it cannot be repeated too often, that public heretics cannot possess an office in the Church is because such men are not members of the Church, not because they are naughty and might do bad things.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
A piece of data, from da Silveira:

Quote:
...it is commonly admitted that the schismatic eastern rite bishops (they are also heretics) possess a jurisdiction which the Popes tacitly concede to them*

*See Herve, Man Theol. Dogm., vol. I, p. 449,. n. 453, note 1, and bibliography there indicated.


This is da Silveira's weakest topic, in my opinion. He does not distinguish between habitual and supplied jurisdiction. Consequently he suggests that the Orientals may have habitual jurisdiction when in fact they are only said to exercise, per modum actus, supplied jurisdiction.

I can't find my Volume I of Herve! Perhaps somebody else has a copy handy?


Do you remember we interchanged some mails on this very topic more than two years ago? :)

I have the 1935 edition and I couldn´t find Hervé saying this. Perhaps Da Silveira has another edition (he doesn´t say which edition he used, which is a rather serious defect), since the numbers are differents. In any case in number 448 (pages 455-456) Hervé says exactly the opposite Da Silverira attributes to him.

Quote:
N. 448. 2.b:

"Occult heretics remain members of the Church in a juridical or canonical sense as it is commonly taught by theologians against Suarez, Franzelin and others. In fact 1)... 2) As everybody admits, the bishop (or priest) who is occult heretic retains and validly exercise his ordinary jurisdiction*. Therefore he who is outside the Church is unable, ipso facto, to exercise ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore occult heretics remain members of the Church"


* Note of Hervé: "Until he receives a condemnatory or declaratory sentence. Cf. CIC c. 2314, 2261 and 2264. Cf. Jugie... Delandes... Cappello..."

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I can't find my Volume I of Herve! Perhaps somebody else has a copy handy?


Do you remember we interchanged some mails on this very topic more than two years ago? :)


On the topic of me not being able to find Vol. I of Hervé? :)

I have a vague recollection of emails about the Oriental schismatics. What did we say? :)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have the 1935 edition and I couldn´t find Hervé saying this. Perhaps Da Silveira has another edition (he doesn´t say which edition he used, which is a rather serious defect), since the numbers are differents. In any case in number 448 (pages 455-456) Hervé says exactly the opposite Da Silverira attributes to him.

Quote:
N. 448. 2.b:

"Occult heretics remain members of the Church in a juridical or canonical sense as it is commonly taught by theologians against Suarez, Franzelin and others. In fact 1)... 2) As everybody admits, the bishop (or priest) who is occult heretic retains and validly exercise his ordinary jurisdiction*. Therefore he who is outside the Church is unable, ipso facto, to exercise ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore occult heretics remain members of the Church"


* Note of Hervé: "Until he receives a condemnatory or declaratory sentence. Cf. CIC c. 2314, 2261 and 2264. Cf. Jugie... Delandes... Cappello..."


Yes, this contradicts da Silaviera's understanding: "he who is outside the Church is unable, ipso facto, to exercise ordinary jurisdiction." Clear and definite.

And, of course, it's further evidence for my view in another sense also, in that if one who is outside the Church were unable, ipso facto, to exercise jurisdiction, period, then he would have said that, but he didn't. He qualified it as "ordinary jurisdiction."

But should it really have a "Therefore" on the front? It seems to be one of the premises in a syllogism, with the other being, "occult heretics retain and validly exercise ordinary jurisdiction." The conclusion then follows: "Therefore occult heretics remain members of the Church." Have I understood it?

Interesting points.

1. Occult heretics remain members of the Church. Suarez had said the opposite, but he was not followed by many, then Franzelin unsuccessfully attempted to revive his opinion towards the end of the nineteenth century. Fenton complains about this somewhere, I think.
2. Everybody admits that an occult heretic retains his ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore heresy as such is not incompatible with the exercise of jurisdiction, even ordinary jurisdiction.
3. "Until he receives a condemnatory or declaratory sentence." This applies only to occult heretics (and this is clear in Hervé, I think). Public heretics lose their jurisdiction, with any offices they have held, ipso facto (i.e. CIC 188,4). This seems to me to be a point on which Miaskiewicz has winked. He seems to say that nobody loses his jurisdiction until and unless a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been given.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:00 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have the 1935 edition and I couldn´t find Hervé saying this. Perhaps Da Silveira has another edition (he doesn´t say which edition he used, which is a rather serious defect), since the numbers are differents.


If da Silveira (should we call him "Da Silveira" or "da Silveira" when referring to him in this way?) had an earlier edition of Hervé, then perhaps Hervé later omitted the note, which would indicate that he changed his mind. This therefore takes him away as a quotable authority on that point, and if anything makes him an authority for the other side of the argument. I can't recall what edition I have... Pray to St. Anthony!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane wrote:
I can't find my Volume I of Herve! Perhaps somebody else has a copy handy?


Do you remember we interchanged some mails on this very topic more than two years ago? :)


On the topic of me not being able to find Vol. I of Hervé? :)


No, you had it by then! See below :D (next response actually)

Quote:
I have a vague recollection of emails about the Oriental schismatics. What did we say? :)


mmm I think that was about something a little different, it was about Fenton saying that schimatic Bishops may be invited to an Ecumenical Council whereas the protestants cannot (Fenton quoted the letters Pius IX sent to both of them and the differences), etc.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have the 1935 edition and I couldn´t find Hervé saying this. Perhaps Da Silveira has another edition (he doesn´t say which edition he used, which is a rather serious defect), since the numbers are differents. In any case in number 448 (pages 455-456) Hervé says exactly the opposite Da Silverira attributes to him.

Quote:
N. 448. 2.b:

"Occult heretics remain members of the Church in a juridical or canonical sense as it is commonly taught by theologians against Suarez, Franzelin and others. In fact 1)... 2) As everybody admits, the bishop (or priest) who is occult heretic retains and validly exercise his ordinary jurisdiction*. Therefore he who is outside the Church is unable, ipso facto, to exercise ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore occult heretics remain members of the Church"


* Note of Hervé: "Until he receives a condemnatory or declaratory sentence. Cf. CIC c. 2314, 2261 and 2264. Cf. Jugie... Delandes... Cappello..."


Quote:
Yes, this contradicts da Silaviera's understanding: "he who is outside the Church is unable, ipso facto, to exercise ordinary jurisdiction." Clear and definite.


Indeed.

Quote:
And, of course, it's further evidence for my view in another sense also, in that if one who is outside the Church were unable, ipso facto, to exercise jurisdiction, period, then he would have said that, but he didn't. He qualified it as "ordinary jurisdiction."


Of course, supplied jurisdiction may be exercised by any priest or bishop under certain circumstances. BTW this same confussion is hold by Cajetan as Billot says in his critique of his "Papa deponendus" theory.

Quote:
But should it really have a "Therefore" on the front? It seems to be one of the premises in a syllogism, with the other being, "occult heretics retain and validly exercise ordinary jurisdiction." The conclusion then follows: "Therefore occult heretics remain members of the Church." Have I understood it?


Yes, you got it! After the words I quoted, Hervé said: "Therefore, occult heretics remain members of the Church". :)

Quote:
Interesting points.

1. Occult heretics remain members of the Church. Suarez had said the opposite, but he was not followed by many, then Franzelin unsuccessfully attempted to revive his opinion towards the end of the nineteenth century. Fenton complains about this somewhere, I think.


Indeed. Fenton´s criticism of Franzelin is here http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fento ... Church.pdf pages 297 ff

Quote:
2. Everybody admits that an occult heretic retains his ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore heresy as such is not incompatible with the exercise of jurisdiction, even ordinary jurisdiction.


Indeed! Public heresy is incompatible.

Quote:
3. "Until he receives a condemnatory or declaratory sentence." This applies only to occult heretics (and this is clear in Hervé, I think). Public heretics lose their jurisdiction, with any offices they have held, ipso facto (i.e. CIC 188,4). This seems to me to be a point on which Miaskiewicz has winked. He seems to say that nobody loses his jurisdiction until and unless a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been given.


If Miaskiewicz says so, then I agree with you. That´d be a mistake.

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I have the 1935 edition and I couldn´t find Hervé saying this. Perhaps Da Silveira has another edition (he doesn´t say which edition he used, which is a rather serious defect), since the numbers are differents.


If da Silveira (should we call him "Da Silveira" or "da Silveira" when referring to him in this way?) had an earlier edition of Hervé, then perhaps Hervé later omitted the note, which would indicate that he changed his mind.


I think it should be "Da".

Yes, it may well be that Hervé changed his mind.

Quote:
This therefore takes him away as a quotable authority on that point, and if anything makes him an authority for the other side of the argument.


Agreed!

Quote:
I can't recall what edition I have... Pray to St. Anthony!


I do! :D


John Lane said:

John Lane wrote:
I have Herve’s 1957 edition. The note referred to by Da Silveira doesn’t appear, as far as I can see. He made various changes after Mystici Corporis Christi, which he enumerates in the beginning of the book, but the thesis we are looking at was not one of the changed sections. Perhaps he made changes to it earlier also? If so, he abandoned the opinion ascribed to him by Da Silveira, it seems.


:D

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane said:

John Lane wrote:
I have Herve’s 1957 edition. The note referred to by Da Silveira doesn’t appear, as far as I can see. He made various changes after Mystici Corporis Christi, which he enumerates in the beginning of the book, but the thesis we are looking at was not one of the changed sections. Perhaps he made changes to it earlier also? If so, he abandoned the opinion ascribed to him by Da Silveira, it seems.


:D


Good work. That's weird, I don't recall that at all! Getting old!

Attached are the pages from the 1935 edition, from the late Pat Omlor's library (I took these with my phone today).

Attachment:
herve_455.jpg
herve_455.jpg [ 1.51 MiB | Viewed 66195 times ]
Attachment:
herve_456.jpg
herve_456.jpg [ 1.54 MiB | Viewed 66195 times ]

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Should we call him "Da Silveira" or "da Silveira" when referring to him in this way?


Finally, a question about which I can contribute to the discussion.

The first rule is that a name should be presented as the author himself wrote it in his published work. Thus, if he himself published his work using Da Silveira, then this is how it should be written; if he published his work using da Silveira, it should be written this way unless his name begins a sentence, in which case, the "D" would be capitalized.

I note that his book, Can the Pope Go Bad, is available on this site (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Pope_Bad.pdf) and the title page presents his name using all capital letters but with the first letters of his name in larger capital letters and the "DA" is printed with a larger capital D and a smaller capital A. So, in this case, it appears that his name should be written as: Da Silveira in all cases.

The only problem is if he has multiple works published with different capitalization, in which case, it would be proper to use the capitalization used in the work cited, but you could simply choose which one seems more prevalent and stick with that form.

Ok. You can go back to the question of jurisdiction now.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Thanks TKGS, I have no idea!

Here's his blog, and he uses a lower-case "d" when writing his name there: http://www.arnaldoxavierdasilveira.com/

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John Lane said:

John Lane wrote:
I have Herve’s 1957 edition. The note referred to by Da Silveira doesn’t appear, as far as I can see. He made various changes after Mystici Corporis Christi, which he enumerates in the beginning of the book, but the thesis we are looking at was not one of the changed sections. Perhaps he made changes to it earlier also? If so, he abandoned the opinion ascribed to him by Da Silveira, it seems.


:D


Good work. That's weird, I don't recall that at all! Getting old!

:lol:

Attached are the pages from the 1935 edition, from the late Pat Omlor's library (I took these with my phone today).

Attachment:
herve_455.jpg
Attachment:
herve_456.jpg


That´s exactly the same I have.

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Thanks TKGS, I have no idea!

Here's his blog, and he uses a lower-case "d" when writing his name there: http://www.arnaldoxavierdasilveira.com/


Ahh no idea, so it must be "da" then.

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:57 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian, did you notice this?

Cardinal Billot wrote:
Some restriction must be made concerning the sacrament of Penance for the validity of which is required jurisdiction which is not given through ordination but is exclusively communicated by the Church’s prelates. Hence in the Greek sects having validly ordained priests and bishops, the sacrament of penance is null save in articulo mortis when every priest has from the Catholic Church the power to absolve. Yet it might be possible to say that the Church supplies in certain regions where there is common error, i.e. good faith, and a coloured title on the part of the priests.

Translated by John Daly. See Footnote 4. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... p=118#p118


He is very non-committal, but nevertheless he suggests the possibility. He could have omitted this comment, but chose to include it. This is not as strong a statement as Herve had originally made (according to da Silviera) but it's a much greater authority. Anyway, for what it's worth.

Note also that he very definitely suggests the possibility of that common error which is the basis of the supply of jurisdiction amongst men who are definitely not Catholics. I had often wondered whether common error amongst ex-Catholics would suffice to meet the condition of canon 209. It seems from this that it would. This has implications for the validity of appointments to offices by non-popes in our era...

The entire text is worth reviewing. There's a fascinating section in the middle dealing with sacramental validity, in which Billot emphasises that non-Catholic ministers can validly confect sacraments despite the fact that it is necessary for validity that a minister have the intention to do what the Church does. He says that their intention to do what the Catholic Church does is implicit. This is a good analogue, I think, to the situation of those of the faithful caught up innocently in the Conciliar sect. In the case of these faithful, the intention is explicit, not merely implicit, so I think their status as Catholics is very secure (in reason, I mean - not that they are secure in the Church - quite the contrary!).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 09, 2014 3:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
If I understand correctly, the following applies:

1) Instances of supplied jurisdiction occur today in the True Church when necessary.

2) The source of all jurisdiction in the Church rests in the true reigning Pope, only.

Ergo, we must have a true pope, alive, in existence, in the world, today, somewhere.

And not one of the reigning anti-popes is him.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri May 09, 2014 7:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Cristian, did you notice this?

Cardinal Billot wrote:
Some restriction must be made concerning the sacrament of Penance for the validity of which is required jurisdiction which is not given through ordination but is exclusively communicated by the Church’s prelates. Hence in the Greek sects having validly ordained priests and bishops, the sacrament of penance is null save in articulo mortis when every priest has from the Catholic Church the power to absolve. Yet it might be possible to say that the Church supplies in certain regions where there is common error, i.e. good faith, and a coloured title on the part of the priests.

Translated by John Daly. See Footnote 4. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... p=118#p118


He is very non-committal, but nevertheless he suggests the possibility. He could have omitted this comment, but chose to include it. This is not as strong a statement as Herve had originally made (according to da Silviera) but it's a much greater authority. Anyway, for what it's worth.


I hadn´t read it until now. Beautiful pages!

It seems this is common doctrine.

Royo Marín ("Teología moral para seglares", vol. 2, num. 274 in fine) talking about the necessity of jurisdiction for the validity of confession, says:

Quote:
"Regarding the cismatic and heretic priests validly ordained, they lack, in itself, any power of jurisdiction, which can only be granted the true Church of Jesus Christ; but the majority of the authors believe the Catholic Church supplies benignly that jurisdiction, for the good of so many poor souls who are in good faith either in heresy or in schism".


And he quotes Capello, De Poenitentia, n. 349 (which I don´t have).

Just one question, is a coloured title necessary in case of common error, as Billot suggests? I´ve read it isn´t.

Quote:
Note also that he very definitely suggests the possibility of that common error which is the basis of the supply of jurisdiction amongst men who are definitely not Catholics. I had often wondered whether common error amongst ex-Catholics would suffice to meet the condition of canon 209. It seems from this that it would. This has implications for the validity of appointments to offices by non-popes in our era...


What you mean by ex-Catholics? Those raised in a non-Catholic sect who follow the religion of their parents when they get the use of reason, or rather those who leave the Church? If you mean the last ones, I guess you are not talking of those who are in bad faith, and therefore you would be assuming the posibility that a person may leave the Church without sinning, right?

Quote:
The entire text is worth reviewing. There's a fascinating section in the middle dealing with sacramental validity, in which Billot emphasises that non-Catholic ministers can validly confect sacraments despite the fact that it is necessary for validity that a minister have the intention to do what the Church does. He says that their intention to do what the Catholic Church does is implicit. This is a good analogue, I think, to the situation of those of the faithful caught up innocently in the Conciliar sect. In the case of these faithful, the intention is explicit, not merely implicit, so I think their status as Catholics is very secure (in reason, I mean - not that they are secure in the Church - quite the contrary!).


My question is, whose intention was talking Billot, the priest´s or the faithful´s, or both? I thought it was the intention of the priest.

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

Leon Bloy


Fri May 09, 2014 8:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Ken Gordon wrote:
If I understand correctly, the following applies:

2) The source of all jurisdiction in the Church rests in the true reigning Pope, only.


This has been my doubt as well. Wernz-Vidal commenting the word "Church" in canon 209 say (Vol. II, num 379):

Quote:
If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law
.

Leaving aside our peculiar situation, what about an ordinary period of the vacancy of the See? Does this mean there cannot be supplied jurisdiction during the interregnum?

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

Leon Bloy


Fri May 09, 2014 9:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
This has been my doubt as well. Wernz-Vidal commenting the word "Church" in canon 209 say (Vol. II, num 379):

Quote:
If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law
.

Leaving aside our peculiar situation, what about an ordinary period of the vacancy of the See? Does this mean there cannot be supplied jurisdiction during the interregnum?


Cristian, have you ever seen any author even suggest such a thing?

As far as I see it, the law is the proximate source of supplied jurisdiciton, the pope is the ultimate, remote, source. So there's no problem with the supply of jurisdiction during an interregnum. Wernz-Vidal is perfectly clear about the law, I think. Laws don't cease to have effect in the absence of the lawgiver.


Fri May 09, 2014 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
This has been my doubt as well. Wernz-Vidal commenting the word "Church" in canon 209 say (Vol. II, num 379):

Quote:
If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law
.

Leaving aside our peculiar situation, what about an ordinary period of the vacancy of the See? Does this mean there cannot be supplied jurisdiction during the interregnum?


Cristian, have you ever seen any author even suggest such a thing?

As far as I see it, the law is the proximate source of supplied jurisdiciton, the pope is the ultimate, remote, source. So there's no problem with the supply of jurisdiction during an interregnum. Wernz-Vidal is perfectly clear about the law, I think. Laws don't cease to have effect in the absence of the lawgiver.


No, I haven´t. Actually I agree with you, it was just that I was surprised they understood "Pope" when it says "Church", but I´m sure it is because of the reason you just gave: "proximate-remote source".

:)

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

Leon Bloy


Fri May 09, 2014 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sedevacantism and jurisdiction
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
No, I haven´t. Actually I agree with you, it was just that I was surprised they understood "Pope" when it says "Church", but I´m sure it is because of the reason you just gave: "proximate-remote source".

:)


Well, that's my own view, not anything I've read, but I am sure that all that Billot is doing in this text is emphasising the theological truth which was later given papal confirmation by Pius XII that all jurisdiction originates with the Roman Pontiff, against the Gallican notion which sought always to play this down and refer such things to the Church in general. The same Gallican thinking is at the back of the notion criticised in Newman and retracted by him afterwards, and effectively dealt with by one of the clauses in the definition of papal infallibility, that infallibility requires the consent of the Church. We've seen a resurgence of this Gallicanism in sedeplenist circles over the past few decades. In that light one can really appreciate the extraordinary intervention of Providence in the Vatican Council, which really mortally wounded these ideas in sufficient time for the theological schools to shake them out so that when Vatican II finally happened, the tendency to Gallican ideas was pretty much dead. Billot was a key figure in the renaissance of Roman theology and he has one eye on these things at every step. Actually, on consideration, he was its crowning glory, its acme.

Roman theology sees the pope as a kind of church-in-person, summing up in himself the character, powers, and charisms of the Church, and being in a very real sense the source of the Church. This is why Fr. Cekada can say that all the offices can be vacant at once and yet the same Church will emerge from Rome once the See is filled again. I am not convinced of that specific element (i.e. that all offices can be vacant at once), but I think that's the root of his thinking, and insofar as that's what he means, he is entirely sound.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 4:03 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


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

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