FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Validity of sede Bishops
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Does anyone have any insight, articles, or pronouncements at hand on the validity of the consecration of Bishops such as Pivarunas, Kelly, Sanborn, et al?  Just recently I have become aware of just how many of these guys are going around claiming to be Bishops.  Much of it seems quite shadowy, e.g. Bishop so and so was ordained in secret by Bishop X who was ordained in secret by Bishop Thuc ad infinitum. 

Also, how does the Church handle such matters?  There is no empirical way of knowing whether someone has received orders, so what does the Church do in the future if it is necessary to clarify the matter.

My question is narrowly confined to the above and not intended to have anything to do with sedevacantism, so I hope I am not afoul of the rules.
It is difficult to determine, as you noticed.

In most cases, I'd say not to trust any of them. A consecration from Thuc eventually leads to the ordination of some woman named Sinéad O'Connor. So, somewhere along the line, something went wrong, and the question is "where?".

For some, like the Eastern Orthodox, who have maintained Apostolic Succession rather well, it is not so difficult (they all are considered valid ordinations), but modern instances are rather individualistic and it is very difficult to judge.

In cases where a sacrament is questionable, the Church can conditionally confer the sacrament or redo it (whatever is theologically possible).

What Rosarium said.  The Church will investigate on a case-by-case basis when one submits himself to the authority of the Holy See.  If the person can continue in ministry, they will apply the appropriate remedy.  They do the same with Old Catholics, etc.

Until one submits to authority, though, I believe the Church generally doesn't bother with a determination.
Another answer is that "yes" the Thuc consecrations are valid.  This has been studied over and over again.  In fact, they should be considered more valid than any of Modernist bishops that purport to have some kind of authority in the local diocese.  It is actually the Modernists that need to submit to the Church and actually accept the Catholic faith before they can even be considered to have any authority.
(04-02-2011, 02:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Another answer is that "yes" the Thuc consecrations are valid.  This has been studied over and over again.  In fact, they should be considered more valid than any of Modernist bishops that purport to have some kind of authority in the local diocese.  It is actually the Modernists that need to submit to the Church and actually accept the Catholic faith before they can even be considered to have any authority.

How many of these modernists are "ordaining" female pop singers?

The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, not by temporal concerns.
(04-02-2011, 02:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Another answer is that "yes" the Thuc consecrations are valid.  This has been studied over and over again.  In fact, they should be considered more valid than any of Modernist bishops that purport to have some kind of authority in the local diocese.  It is actually the Modernists that need to submit to the Church and actually accept the Catholic faith before they can even be considered to have any authority.

Agreed!
(04-02-2011, 02:50 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]How many of these modernists are "ordaining" female pop singers?

Some of them have indeed "ordained" female clergy.

Quote:The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, not by temporal concerns.

Temporal concerns are certainly a part of the governance of the Church.

Abusus non tollit usum.
(04-02-2011, 02:50 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 02:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Another answer is that "yes" the Thuc consecrations are valid.  This has been studied over and over again.  In fact, they should be considered more valid than any of Modernist bishops that purport to have some kind of authority in the local diocese.  It is actually the Modernists that need to submit to the Church and actually accept the Catholic faith before they can even be considered to have any authority.

How many of these modernists are "ordaining" female pop singers?

The Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, not by temporal concerns.
Hey she did burn a picture of JPII
(04-02-2011, 03:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Temporal concerns are certainly a part of the governance of the Church.

Abusus non tollit usum.

The validity concerns here are a matter of apostolic succession. Obviously, if the one that is known to be valid, then that can be passed on, however, when it is no longer valid is not so clear.

And it is clear that validity concerns are a factor after only one consecration.

Now, where was the source of this? From the man who received the authority from the Church in the first place. This is where the guidance is, in the Church. As soon as one leaves it, anything can (and will) happen and quite quickly.
(04-02-2011, 02:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Another answer is that "yes" the Thuc consecrations are valid.  This has been studied over and over again.  In fact, they should be considered more valid than any of Modernist bishops that purport to have some kind of authority in the local diocese.  It is actually the Modernists that need to submit to the Church and actually accept the Catholic faith before they can even be considered to have any authority.

I'm not aware of any sacramental theology according to which a consecration can be more or less valid.  They either are valid or are not valid. 
Pages: 1 2 3