FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(04-15-2021, 02:43 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 01:22 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Very true. My understanding is that bishops are consecrated by other bishops, and that is where they get the apostolic line and power if you will of a bishop from, the fact that it comes from a passing on of the power of the apostles. The Pope though is involved in as much as approving it, and has the ability, as far as I know, to withdraw the power of a bishop. Thus, if a pope declares that another bishops ordination was illicit, then they are a bishop, but unable to use their power as a bishop. The men they consecrate then would not be licit priests.
That's right, the Pope has universal power of episcopal jurisdiction and has the power of granting and withdrawing the ordinary jurisdiction of any bishop or priest.

Memories in rain, will definitely read that after work, thank you!

So theory time:

Couple bishops have faculties pulled for x reason by the pope by being declared outside the church (thus, heretics). They continue to ordain priests. These priest are priests, but illicit. Can they then in the future be consecrated bishops since yes, it is a real bishop that ordained them but was an illicit act, thus making them illicit priests in the beginning? In a real world since, now actually curious about this, do we think that bishops that have been declared illicit, does their lineage then still produce actual priests and bishops? Do we recognize the validity of the orthodox priests and bishops since, in a sense, they are a similar case?

If so, then that very well would mean that 55 years or even hundreds of years can pass with no pope as long as some bishops that stand true and, despite be striped of their power, they continue to keep a line of priests and bishops going. Thus the sedes have a strong argument for their case that in the future something can be done through their lines.

If however once a bishop loses his power then it is indeed lost and his actions are infact invalid (as in the pope going heretical losing his powers and his actions now are invalid), then its back to square one of a dying church. For if a pope (bishop) loses his power and all his actions are invalid, including ordaining priest, raising people to the lvl of bishop, and even cardinal, then it would hold true that that would happen to said other bishops as well, no?

Really curious on this one now, had not thought of this aspect
(04-15-2021, 04:21 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 02:43 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 01:22 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Very true. My understanding is that bishops are consecrated by other bishops, and that is where they get the apostolic line and power if you will of a bishop from, the fact that it comes from a passing on of the power of the apostles. The Pope though is involved in as much as approving it, and has the ability, as far as I know, to withdraw the power of a bishop. Thus, if a pope declares that another bishops ordination was illicit, then they are a bishop, but unable to use their power as a bishop. The men they consecrate then would not be licit priests.
That's right, the Pope has universal power of episcopal jurisdiction and has the power of granting and withdrawing the ordinary jurisdiction of any bishop or priest.

Memories in rain, will definitely read that after work, thank you!

So theory time:

Couple bishops have faculties pulled for x reason by the pope by being declared outside the church (thus, heretics). They continue to ordain priests. These priest are priests, but illicit. Can they then in the future be consecrated bishops since yes, it is a real bishop that ordained them but was an illicit act, thus making them illicit priests in the beginning? In a real world since, now actually curious about this, do we think that bishops that have been declared illicit, does their lineage then still produce actual priests and bishops? Do we recognize the validity of the orthodox priests and bishops since, in a sense, they are a similar case?

If so, then that very well would mean that 55 years or even hundreds of years can pass with no pope as long as some bishops that stand true and, despite be striped of their power, they continue to keep a line of priests and bishops going. Thus the sedes have a strong argument for their case that in the future something can be done through their lines.

If however once a bishop loses his power then it is indeed lost and his actions are infact invalid (as in the pope going heretical losing his powers and his actions now are invalid), then its back to square one of a dying church. For if a pope (bishop) loses his power and all his actions are invalid, including ordaining priest, raising people to the lvl of bishop, and even cardinal, then it would hold true that that would happen to said other bishops as well, no?

Really curious on this one now, had not thought of this aspect

What you are describing is precisely the issue with the Orthodox. They have valid priests and valid bishops, but they are illicit since they are in schism ( and heresy). But, Catholic bishops ordained without a standing Pope are still licit because otherwise it would be impossible to ordain any bishops during an interregnum since there is no acting Pope. Therefore, in the sedevacantist side of things, their bishops are valid and licit because they are ordained through an extended period of sede vacante.

Conversely, the case of the Anglicans is different because their initial bishops were validly ordained when they split from Rome, but, since they changed the rite of ordination, any subsequent bishops were invalid because the form and intent was not the same. This wasn't declared so until Pope Leo XIII, but, it is the basis for the potential invalidity of Novus Ordo bishops in the new rite of ordination because of the changes made. I personally, am on the fence about this issue, and since there is doubt whether or not a NO bishop is valid (and by extension, their priests) why I would avoid them.

But, once a bishop (or priest) is validly ordained, they are always a priest/bishop even if they apostatize because it leaves an indelible mark on their souls.
The home alone sedevacantists hold that episcopal consecrations without approval of the pope are illegitimate.  They reject the sedevacantist "bishops."
(04-15-2021, 05:12 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]The home alone sedevacantists hold that episcopal consecrations without approval of the pope are illegitimate.  They reject the sedevacantist "bishops."
Which I would hold as wrong because Canon Law is primarily focused on the SALVATION OF SOULS. It may be bent or ignored altogether if souls are in need of saving. This is why episcopal consecration without approval of the Pope are legitimate, because we don’t have a Pope and souls must continue to be saved. 
(04-15-2021, 04:48 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]What you are describing is precisely the issue with the Orthodox. They have valid priests and valid bishops, but they are illicit since they are in schism ( and heresy). But, Catholic bishops ordained without a standing Pope are still licit because otherwise it would be impossible to ordain any bishops during an interregnum since there is no acting Pope. Therefore, in the sedevacantist side of things, their bishops are valid and licit because they are ordained through an extended period of sede vacante.
Exactly.

I'm not used to seeing the word "licit" for priests or bishops, usually I think we say that an act (such as a sacrament) is licit or illicit.
(04-15-2021, 05:12 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]The home alone sedevacantists hold that episcopal consecrations without approval of the pope are illegitimate.  They reject the sedevacantist "bishops."
There are cases when I think it is lawful to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, such as when there is no way to contact the Pope. I think this has happened a number of times and been approved by the Pope once he received news about it. I think that happened in the church in China (the real one).
(04-15-2021, 05:20 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 04:48 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]What you are describing is precisely the issue with the Orthodox. They have valid priests and valid bishops, but they are illicit since they are in schism ( and heresy). But, Catholic bishops ordained without a standing Pope are still licit because otherwise it would be impossible to ordain any bishops during an interregnum since there is no acting Pope. Therefore, in the sedevacantist side of things, their bishops are valid and licit because they are ordained through an extended period of sede vacante.
Exactly.

I'm not used to seeing the word "licit" for priests or bishops, usually I think we say that an act (such as a sacrament) is licit or illicit.

Well, recall that the rite of ordination (Holy Orders) is in fact a sacrament, so the same terminology applies.
(04-15-2021, 05:27 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Well, recall that the rite of ordination (Holy Orders) is in fact a sacrament, so the same terminology applies.
The ordination is a sacrament, but a priest is not a sacrament. So we could say that someone is a licitly ordained priest. To describe his state at some later point, we might say that he is suspended, if that is the case, not that he is illicit.
Food for thought. St. Pius X pray for us.

via Steven Speray:

Quote:[Image: popepiusx.png?w=500&h=412]
“When one loves the pope, one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit to this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext- easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey-that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, FOR THERE CAN BE NO HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POPE.” Address to the priest of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912 In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912] p. 695 

Now apply this teaching of Pope St. Pius X to the following… 
Benedict XVI promotes women on the Altar; pictures of a Mass at the St. Peter’s Basilica @ TraditionInAction.org
It seems to me that he is not speaking absolutely. Clearly there have been saints in the past who have disagreed with the Pope. Saint Catherine of Siena and Saint Bridget of Sweden come to mind.