It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
 Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
It seems the Council of Trent is against long-term sedevacantism:
  • The Church's hierarchy is essential to Her:
    Quote:
    DZ 966 Can. 6. Si quis dixerit, in Ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam, divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex episcopis, presbyteris et ministris an. s. (cf. DS 1768) {DZ 966 Can. 6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is no hierarchy, instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of the bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].}
  • The Church's hierarchy cannot be replenished without a Supreme Pontiff:
    Quote:
    DZ 968 Si quis dixerit, episcopos, qui auctoritate Romani Pontificis assumuntur non esse legitimos et veros episcopos, sed figmentum humanum: an. s. {DZ 968 Can. 8. If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman Pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but a human invention: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].}
  • Therefore, the Church cannot exist, in the long-term, without a Supreme Pontiff.
The Church must exist for all time (St. Matthew 16:18); therefore, long-term sedevacantism is false.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Alan,

Not sure what you're arguing, but if you're assuming that a false pope implies no valid appointments to offices, and therefore the extinction of the hierarchy, then that's wrong.

Supplied jurisdiction would validate the acts of a false pope, such as appointing men to vacant bishoprics.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Here's an authority, Alan: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
So the premise "The Church's hierarchy cannot be replenished without a Supreme Pontiff" is false.
John Lane wrote:
Not sure what you're arguing, but if you're assuming that a false pope implies no valid appointments to offices, and therefore the extinction of the hierarchy, then that's wrong.

Supplied jurisdiction would validate the acts of a false pope, such as appointing men to vacant bishoprics.
I totally forgot about supplied jurisdiction here, but that does make sense, assuming having only a false pope would satisfy the condition of it being a state of necessity, etc.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 am
Posts: 55
Location: California, USA
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
John Lane wrote:
Here's an authority, Alan: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.


John, this is interesting, as the interregnum can continue fo much longer, right?


Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Phillipus Iacobus wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Here's an authority, Alan: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.


John, this is interesting, as the interregnum can continue fo much longer, right?


Well, it does, however you have other factors which limit it.

An appointment of a non-Catholic will still be invalid, so that's a severely limiting factor on valid appointments of bishops.

The invalidity of the new rite of episcopal orders does not affect the validity of appointments, since the appointment of a layman is valid. He must take orders within a reasonable time, but if he takes what he thinks are valid orders, he's fulfilled the law and it would seem that he would retain the office.

The real limit on the vacancy is the question raised years ago by Jim Larrabee, which I think has merit, that the papacy could not be vacant for more than the life of a man, which can either be taken as forty years (a generation) or 70 or so years. Interestingly, a 70 year crisis is not unknown in Holy Writ, so maybe that's what we're facing. At least that would mean we only have a decade or two left to sit this out!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
John Lane wrote:
Interestingly, a 70 year crisis is not unknown in Holy Writ, so maybe that's what we're facing.
Yes, e.g. the >70 year lapse of time from when "the Book of the Law" was lost during Manasses's and Amon's idolatrous reigns until the high priest Helcias under Josias rediscovered it (4 Kings 22; 2 Paralipomenon 34). It's probably the most relevant OT story to our situation today because it's about the rediscovery and reimplementation of tradition.
St. Josias, ora pro nobis!

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Well, if it continues for another 20 years, I won't see the end of it. I'll be something like 10 years dead by then.

However, as I have insisted from the beginning, a 50 year (and continuing) interregnum is quite simply unheard of in the entire history of the Church, and I firmly believe it is impossible.

Those of you still living when this present crisis ends will be amazed at the solution that God has planned and has implemented for it.

If you happen to remember by that late date, I would appreciate your prayers for my soul which will be, I hope, in Purgatory.

According to an old priest I know, the average stay in Purgatory is 40 years...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
I don't see anything, in the Council of Trent, against the possibility of a long period of vacance of the Holy See.
Although, in a way, for Catholics and for the Church the Pope is all, classical theologians teach us that what is fondamental in order to the indefectibility of the Church is the permanence of the power to elect the Pope.
As it says Gaetano: “Impossibile est Ecclesiam relinqui absque Papa et potestate electiva Papæ" (It is impossible that the Church is left without a Pope and without the power to elect the Pope) (De comparatione 1511).


Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Gabriele wrote:
As it says Gaetano: “Impossibile est Ecclesiam relinqui absque Papa et potestate electiva Papæ" (It is impossible that the Church is left without a Pope and without the power to elect the Pope) (De comparatione 1511).
Thank you

Is there a higher authority that says effectively the same thing as Card. Cajetan says here? Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:24 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Alan, it's at least theologically certain, and I think probably de fide by the ordinary, universal magisterium. Check Ott for the theological note.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
John Lane wrote:
Here's an authority, Alan: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.


This seems to be saying the doubts as to the election are "healed" and he is actually a true pope, yet why would it fall under supplied jurisdiction? This is also consistent with "universal consent" healing the election.


Saint Alphonse de Liguori wrote:
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.


Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:59 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Saint Alphonse de Liguori wrote:
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
From which work of St. Alphonsus does this quote come? Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Alan Aversa wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Saint Alphonse de Liguori wrote:
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
From which work of St. Alphonsus does this quote come? Thanks


John quoted it in another thread. I'll have to find it again. I believe is similar to what Cardinal Franzelin has said regarding a problematic election. I was actually looking for Franzelin's quote when I came across the one from St. Alphonse de Liguori.


Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
I can't seem to locate it again, but here's another similar reference:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=563&p=10115&hilit=illegitimately+elected#p10115


Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:52 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Robert Bastaja wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Here's an authority, Alan: "Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid." Francis Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., "Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209", Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 26.


This seems to be saying the doubts as to the election are "healed" and he is actually a true pope, yet why would it fall under supplied jurisdiction? This is also consistent with "universal consent" healing the election.


A sanatio in radice, is a healing of whatever defect there is, so that what results is complete and without defect - in this case a Roman Pontiff. The same principle applies to various other analogous realities, such as marriages, which can be sanated by authority. It is not retroactive, of course.

This is entirely different from Miaskewicz's point regarding the supply of jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction exists, by definition, only when there is no other jurisdiction, ordinary, delegated, etc. The Roman Pontiff has full and ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church. This is his jurisdiction, ex officio. It is proper to him; it belongs to him. Likewise an ordinary has jurisdiction over his diocese; again, this is proper to him. If jurisdiction is supplied, this implies necessarily that there is no ordinary jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is not proper to him for whose acts it is supplied. It does not belong to the man whose act attracts it. It is supplied for each act, separately, and cannot even be said to be present the moment before the act, or the moment after the act. If a priest without the requisite jurisdiction hears confessions and they attract supplied jurisdiction, then each confession attracts it separately. He doesn't have it whilst he awaits the next penitent (and indeed, the priest never "has" it - his acts attract it). It isn't a persisting authority, but rather an intervention by the Church in an individual act.

Acts attract supplied jurisdiction; men do not.

So, a false pope whose acts are validated by supplied jurisdiction is not pope. He doesn't become pope by this supply. Some of his acts are truly papal acts, that is all.

The relevance of this to the present subject is that it shifts the time-window for valid epsicopal appointments from the death of Pius XII or John XXIII, to some significantly later point. Any Catholic who was appointed to a vacant office by, say, Paul VI, would really have become the office-holder, with whatever jurisdiction was attached to that office.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Thanks, your explanation makes sense. What confuses me is when Miaskiewicz says, "once he were regarded by the world as Pope." Is this not in opposition to a "universal peaceful acceptance" simply because he's saying those qualifying acts while the election was in question (and ongoing) attracted supplied jurisdiction and were valid at the moment they occurred regardless of the outcome of the election?

I guess I'm working the two concepts together when I need to keep them separated.


Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:52 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Thanks, your explanation makes sense. What confuses me is when Miaskiewicz says, "once he were regarded by the world as Pope." Is this not in opposition to a "universal peaceful acceptance" simply because he's saying those qualifying acts while the election was in question (and ongoing) attracted supplied jurisdiction and were valid at the moment they occurred regardless of the outcome of the election?

I guess I'm working the two concepts together when I need to keep them separated.


Yes, the notions are quite distinct.

Miaskiewicz is referring to the condition according to which jurisdiction is supplied, of common error. Universal peaceful acceptance is an unrelated concept, and refers to the fact that the whole Church cannot fall away from the true pope, and that the Church cannot be taught by a false pope, because the Church enjoys passive infallibility as well as active infallibility.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
Robert Bastaja wrote:
What confuses me is when Miaskiewicz says, "once he were regarded by the world as Pope." Is this not in opposition to a "universal peaceful acceptance"...


I should add, to make it clearer, Miaskiewicz's point would stand even if only a majority of Catholics considered the false pope to be pope. That would constitute common error and the acts would attract supplied jurisdiction. Miaskiewicz looks to be making his point in an emphatic fashion, but I agree it is not the best way to formulate the point, because of the existence of the other unrelated principle.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
So, if the very rites of episcopal consecration and/or priestly ordination are invalid and the occupants of the vast majority of episcopal sees (including, especially, the Holy See) are occupied by mere layman (which will begin to happen without any possiblity of doubt when the Conciliar church begins to ordain women--something I believe will happen within the next dozen years or so), can the "acts" of these laymen still be covered by supplied jurisdiction when they are acts that are truly necessary (and non-sacramental, since layman cannot confer the sacraments other than baptism and matrimony) acts that the Catholic Church would have done?


Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Trent contra Long-Term Sedevacantism
TKGS wrote:
So, if the very rites of episcopal consecration and/or priestly ordination are invalid and the occupants of the vast majority of episcopal sees (including, especially, the Holy See) are occupied by mere layman (which will begin to happen without any possiblity of doubt when the Conciliar church begins to ordain women--something I believe will happen within the next dozen years or so), can the "acts" of these laymen still be covered by supplied jurisdiction when they are acts that are truly necessary (and non-sacramental, since layman cannot confer the sacraments other than baptism and matrimony) acts that the Catholic Church would have done?

Is this not the same thing as agreeing that the Episcopalians and other non-Catholic "religions" enjoy "supplied jurisdiction" in the almost identical cases?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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.