Bp. Williamson's Consecration
#41
Why the tar hill would Ab. Lefebvre use just ONE hand to consecrate Williamson?!

Did this actually happen?  Is there a video of this happening?

Did it just suddenly occur to him that using one hand might be cooler than using two?  What is this? ???
Reply
#42
(07-25-2010, 12:43 AM)Zakhur Wrote: Why the tar hill would Ab. Lefebvre use just ONE hand to consecrate Williamson?!
Did this actually happen?  Is there a video of this happening? Did it just suddenly occur to him that using one hand might be cooler than using two?  What is this? ???

See reply number 9 and reply number 15 on this thread.
Reply
#43
For all his faults, as well as his fruits, I'd rather have a one-handed Bishop Richard Williamson than a typical two-handed novus-Ordinarian bishop.

If consecration helps you to become a better shepherd or spiritual guide then it does not appear to have worked very well with many a novus-ordinarian bishop.  Does it?

If "non-consecration" delivers us Bishop Williamson then perhaps we should try the one-handed approach more often.  I'm not sure what a Canon Lawyer would make of this argument, nor do I very much care, but empirically it appears to work.

Bishop Williamson speaks the unambiguous truth when it comes to the faith.  And he speaks it clearly, loudly and often.  Two-handed or one-handed I cannot help but feel that is a good thing.
Reply
#44
Um, didn't Pius XII clearly state in Sacramentum Ordinis that even moral contact was valid?
Reply
#45
(07-04-2010, 04:00 PM)glgas Wrote:
(07-04-2010, 12:51 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: No, the Council of Florence was just wrong in regard to its non-infallible statement about what the matter of Order was. It wouldn't be the first time a pope our council was wrong in a non-infallible doctrinal decision.

Naturally it is impossible to make infallible statement about changing world related things. But the Council of Florence called in and approved by Pope Eugenius IV has the same value as Pope XII statement.

Perhaps, Father could give a better answer to this question, but it is my understanding that this is a misunderstanding of Bull of Eugene IV.  The Decree for the Armenians is not an act of the Council, but a bull issued concurrently with the Council.  Thus, it is often lumped into the decrees of the Council, and thus some trads say its decrees are infallible and irreformable.  However, it is simply a part of the ordinary papal magisterium, and is infallible in as much as it teaches what is already held dogmatic truth.

Secondly, to my knowledge, the some of the Easterners have never had a "giving of the instruments" part of their ordination rite, and this was something that developed in the Latin Church.  In the medieval period (in which this bull was written), it was assumed that the giving instruments was the most ancient and fundamental part of the Rite, and thus Eugene IV says it is the form.

However, later scholarship and increased discussion with the East showed that the laying of hands was the fundamental part of the Rite.  I believe Leo XIII and Pius XIII agreed on this, and said so.  I'd like to amend Quis's statement about "armchair canonists" to include "armchair theologians" as well.  Its easy to read parts of documents without much prior training, and say: "They got it wrong!  Look!".  However, the bull of Eugene IV certainly didn't bother Popes Leo XIII or Pius XII, or the leading theologians of their day.  I think that shows that it wasn't considered infallible.  I think we should leave these decisions to the wisdom of the Church, and not our own knowledge.
Reply
#46
The point is that popes and the Magisterium has binding and loosing power, so arguing against a pope based on previous decisions (related to the world, to  changeable entities) is anti-Catholic thing.

(07-30-2010, 12:16 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Perhaps, Father could give a better answer to this question, but it is my understanding that this is a misunderstanding of Bull of Eugene IV.  The Decree for the Armenians is not an act of the Council, but a bull issued concurrently with the Council.  Thus, it is often lumped into the decrees of the Council, and thus some trads say its decrees are infallible and irreformable.  However, it is simply a part of the ordinary papal magisterium, and is infallible in as much as it teaches what is already held dogmatic truth.

Secondly, to my knowledge, the some of the Easterners have never had a "giving of the instruments" part of their ordination rite, and this was something that developed in the Latin Church.  In the medieval period (in which this bull was written), it was assumed that the giving instruments was the most ancient and fundamental part of the Rite, and thus Eugene IV says it is the form.

However, later scholarship and increased discussion with the East showed that the laying of hands was the fundamental part of the Rite.  I believe Leo XIII and Pius XIII agreed on this, and said so.  I'd like to amend Quis's statement about "armchair canonists" to include "armchair theologians" as well.  Its easy to read parts of documents without much prior training, and say: "They got it wrong!  Look!".  However, the bull of Eugene IV certainly didn't bother Popes Leo XIII or Pius XII, or the leading theologians of their day.  I think that shows that it wasn't considered infallible.  I think we should leave these decisions to the wisdom of the Church, and not our own knowledge.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)