Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
(10-10-2012, 11:29 AM)kingofspades Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:21 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I'll agree that it doesn't sound good, but the reason it was actually done that way was to avoid claiming ordinary jurisdiction without the pope, which would be schismatic.

The alternative is to become a new Orthodox sect.

Claiming that jurisdiction without the Pope - as the result of a schismatic act - in the state of suspension, is only leaving the door open for protestant ways of having jurisdiction. Simple. And all those 'constructions' with emergency, necessity of the orthodoxy, tradition etc. don't make it less protestant.

Without or even opposed to the Pope = protestant. Clear enough.
Jurisdiction comes from above (the Pope) = catholic
Jurisdiction comes from below (the people) = protestant.
Both claim of course that it express Gods will but only catholics believe that there is no Salvation outside the Church AND so no jurisdiction outside the Pope. The rest is human invention.

In general, I would absolutely agree with you.  But we live in particular times.  As such, we need particular distinctions.

Without or even opposed to the Pope when the Pope is opposed to Catholic doctrine = Catholic.
Jurisdiction comes from above (from God, through the Pope) = Catholic
Jurisdiction comes from below (the people) = Protestant
Jurisdiction comes from above (from God, but not through the Pope in a time when the Catholicity of the Pope's doctrine is questionable) = Catholic.  And the people are simply recognizing this fact, which the Church has always admitted in the case of emergencies.  For example, a Catholic can receive the sacraments from an Orthodox priest when in danger of death.

As to the bit about no salvation outside of the Church, I certainly agree with you.  As to the bit about no jurisdiction outside the Pope, I don't think the Pope agrees with you.  I believe the doctrine du jour is that the Orthodox are valid particular Churches, and so have jurisdiction. 

It's always been a bit mysterious to me how they could be considered to be better off than the SSPX.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 11:19 AM)kingofspades Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.  What they have and what LeFebvre consecrated them for was to give them the power to confirm, ordain and consecrate.  They were specifically not given "territories" or claims to jurisdiction because they were to be essentially "sacramental machines" as LeFebvre described it. 

That, Gerard, is the cornerstone of protestantism...  Crazy!
That is hitting the proverbial nail on the head, Father.
The laity have no authority in ecclesial juridical matters.
But Luther, and Cranmer, etc... believed they did.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 12:04 PM)Old Salt Wrote: The laity have no authority in ecclesial juridical matters.

Absolutely true.  They do, however, have reason, with which they can recognize the reality of an extraordinary situation.  It's traditional to do so (see Arius, Nestorius, etc.), and it's also a part of our obligation of living our Catholic faith.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 12:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 12:04 PM)Old Salt Wrote: The laity have no authority in ecclesial juridical matters.

Absolutely true.  They do, however, have reason, with which they can recognize the reality of an extraordinary situation.  It's traditional to do so (see Arius, Nestorius, etc.), and it's also a part of our obligation of living our Catholic faith.
But what is an individual extraordinary situation in this context?

In 40 plus years I have never been in a diocese in the US or a variety of other countries, that did not offer valid diocesan sacraments, available at relatively easy to get to locations.
As far as good catechesis in sermons, while I agree that the majority of non trad parishes afford lousy sermons, I have experienced, that if one looks, he can find a good sermon preached by a non SSPX priest.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 12:22 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 12:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 12:04 PM)Old Salt Wrote: The laity have no authority in ecclesial juridical matters.

Absolutely true.  They do, however, have reason, with which they can recognize the reality of an extraordinary situation.  It's traditional to do so (see Arius, Nestorius, etc.), and it's also a part of our obligation of living our Catholic faith.
But what is an individual extraordinary situation in this context?

In 40 plus years I have never been in a diocese in the US or a variety of other countries, that did not offer valid diocesan sacraments, available at relatively easy to get to locations.
As far as good catechesis in sermons, while I agree that the majority of non trad parishes afford lousy sermons, I have experienced, that if one looks, he can find a good sermon preached by a non SSPX priest.
I agree.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 11:19 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: OK, why not.  One more time.  From the original post:

Quote: Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even  more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop , as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...z28Oa9OHTQ

I changed which parts were in bold in the original post.  The bolded part indicates that Muller is not denying that +Williamson is a bishop, but that he is Catholic.  The next two clauses: (1)"when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, (2) which Williamson is not" again indicate specifically when a bishop is Catholic.  He is clearly denying that +Williamson is Catholic.  Agree with him or disagree, but for goodness' sake, don't turn it upside down and backward.

It is worth noting that he seems to have no doubt that the LCWR are Catholic, while he seems equally clearly to think the SSPX is not.  That's probably because there are so many Germans in the SSPX and he just can't understand them, whereas the LCWR are perfectly comprehensible, n'est-ce pas?

Or isn't it rather the reverse that is true:  if one could read and understand what the LCWR have written, they would clearly be far less Catholic than the SSPX?

Really, this man has no business being the head of the CDF.  His Grace should withdraw to a monastery and live the rest of his life as a simple layman.

ETA:  The color in Catholic.

By "only Catholic" in that paragraph, I think ought to be read "licitly functioning."  The curia has ruled that the SSPX is not currently schismatic, so I think ++Mueller overstates the case here.  But he is not denying Williamson's being Catholic, but his status as a licitly operating as a bishop (though he is validly ordained).
Reply
(10-10-2012, 11:43 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:29 AM)kingofspades Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:21 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I'll agree that it doesn't sound good, but the reason it was actually done that way was to avoid claiming ordinary jurisdiction without the pope, which would be schismatic.

The alternative is to become a new Orthodox sect.

Claiming that jurisdiction without the Pope - as the result of a schismatic act - in the state of suspension, is only leaving the door open for protestant ways of having jurisdiction. Simple. And all those 'constructions' with emergency, necessity of the orthodoxy, tradition etc. don't make it less protestant.

Without or even opposed to the Pope = protestant. Clear enough.
Jurisdiction comes from above (the Pope) = catholic
Jurisdiction comes from below (the people) = protestant.
Both claim of course that it express Gods will but only catholics believe that there is no Salvation outside the Church AND so no jurisdiction outside the Pope. The rest is human invention.

In general, I would absolutely agree with you.  But we live in particular times.  As such, we need particular distinctions.

Without or even opposed to the Pope when the Pope is opposed to Catholic doctrine = Catholic.
Jurisdiction comes from above (from God, through the Pope) = Catholic
Jurisdiction comes from below (the people) = Protestant
Jurisdiction comes from above (from God, but not through the Pope in a time when the Catholicity of the Pope's doctrine is questionable) = Catholic.  And the people are simply recognizing this fact, which the Church has always admitted in the case of emergencies.  For example, a Catholic can receive the sacraments from an Orthodox priest when in danger of death.

As to the bit about no salvation outside of the Church, I certainly agree with you.  As to the bit about no jurisdiction outside the Pope, I don't think the Pope agrees with you.  I believe the doctrine du jour is that the Orthodox are valid particular Churches, and so have jurisdiction. 

It's always been a bit mysterious to me how they could be considered to be better off than the SSPX.

They went into schism with whole local churches in toto, bishops and flocks, maintaining a jurisdictional claim on their dioceses.  And further, there is a strangely continuous history of each side treating each others jurisdiction as somewhat meaningful (there is no Orthodox pretender to the See of Rome, never has been, and aside from certain key Sees and in the midst of the Crusades, rarely a Catholic bishop inserted into a place with an existing Orthodox hierarchy).  Well into the history of the schism, Franciscan and Dominican friars when missionaries in the Middle East, would treat the Orthodox bishops as their ordinaries.  Orthodox continued to admit that the Pope is the chief bishop, and Orthodox Patriarchs would make requests to Rome for priests to fill in shortages (that contact is how the Melkite Catholics got started, but it was slow).  But that original, continuing jurisdiction was key.  The Popes never denied that the Eastern Churches existed in continuity, and have always attempted reconciliation with their bishops rather than replacement,

The SSPX situation is very different; in some ways much better, in some ways worse off.  There is no continuing jurisdiction with the past, though there is with the Campos situation.
Reply
Has anyone quoted Pastor Æternus here yet?
Vatican I Wrote:Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world [The SSPX are not subordinated in the matters "that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church".]; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation. [Thus, have the SSPX deviated and incurred a "loss of faith and salvation"?]

But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction [Thus, the Holy Father (let alone Müller) cannot stifle the SSPX bishops' jurisdiction or "un-episcopize" them.], by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each his own flock, as true pastors, that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor [Thus, a pope does not grant episcopal authority. He only backs it up.]; in accordance with the words of St. Gregory the Great: 'My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the firm strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when the honor due to each and all is not withheld.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 02:38 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-09-2012, 10:42 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: This is where I am coming from.  If I am lacking some understanding of what exactly constitutes a "Catholic bishop", someone cite something to me to educate me better.

"It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. […] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
This is absolutely not a "controverted question" because it was stated clearly in the 2nd ¶ of Vatican I's Pastor Æternus that I've quoted above that bishops "have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each his own flock, as true pastors" and "that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected [(not granted)] by [or derived from] the supreme and universal Pastor" (the Pope), who cannot be "any prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction".

(Is anyone else here in favor of getting the Fisheaters's admin to forbid any citations to the Catholic Encyclopedia? It's not a very reliable source.)
(10-10-2012, 02:38 AM)Parmandur Wrote: The authority of a Bishop outside of the communion of the Pope is tenuous, at best.  This seems to be what ++ Mueller is saying: that as he has not received any authority from the Pope, Williamson is not (read licitly) a Catholic Bishop.
Again, a bishop derives his authority immediately from the Holy Ghost. The Supreme Pontiff only makes sure a bishop's "episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected."

Thus, Bp. Williamson has episcopal authority, although it is certainly weakened due to the Pope's lack of support.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 10:55 AM)Gerard Wrote: The SSPX bishops have no authority except that given to them by the faithful who want to hear what they have to say, preach and teach.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)