Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
(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.

Ooohhh you will probably better know than the Pope that our times are so 'particular' , that "the Catholicity of the Pope's doctrine is questionable". And since you know that so sure, you can hold your self-declared 'emergency' disobedience and rejection of magisterial teachings for OK.

And that with the argument of acceptance of jurisdiction in eastern orthodox churches, which you in fact, of course, reject. Also because that is error, or? Tsk. Well, don't use erring arguments, if you are consistent in your theology...

Don't blame me that I still call that protestant, nothing less.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 03:21 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(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.

True, to a certain extent; but that is also true of Orthodox bishops, possibly Miaphysite bishops and certain "Old Catholics" like the Polish National Church.  These all have valid episcopal lines and sacraments, but their episocasy is somewhat compromised due to their position vis a vis the Pope; and the SSPX and the Old Catholics have the added complication of lacking membership in a particular church.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia 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.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Reply
(10-10-2012, 03:21 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(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.)

I also think you miss the point that what the CE (a very valuable resource) lays out was the dominant reading of Pastor Æternus in the time of St. Pius X.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 04:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 03:25 PM)Geremia 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.
No. A bishop's authority comes from the Holy Ghost (cf. this).

But in what way is the authority granted by the Holy Ghost made manifest?
Via the episcopal consecration
Reply
(10-10-2012, 04:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I also think you miss the point that what the CE (a very valuable resource) lays out was the dominant reading of Pastor Æternus in the time of St. Pius X.
I fail to see how it was a "controverted" question. Didn't Pastor Æternus settle it? If not, why?
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!

No it's not.  There is no cornerstone of Protestantism for one thing.  What motivated Calvinists is not the same as what motivates Baptists or Methodists. 

The fact is, Catholics pick and choose who their spiritual counselors are, the Catechism of Trent tells people to be careful about choosing their confessors,  in each of those cases,  a Catholic seeks out among the ordained who they will choose to listen to and subject themselves to their counsel. 

My local ordinary has jurisdiction and the authority that comes with it.  He can make rules, bind and loose a limited number of things, but his spiritual counsel only has authority in terms of how it conforms to the truth.  If he's teaching against the faith or in favor of some nonsensical secular policy, he has no authority over me.  If another bishop or the magisterial teaching of a dead Pope teaches in conformity with the truth against the bishop, I'm subject to the authority of tradition.  If an SSPX bishop or trad bishops echoes that magisterial teaching or teaches in conformity with the truth, I put my trust in him and in effect give him a degree of personal authority over me. 

It's not owed to him, he's not entitled to it, he can't bind and loose like the local ordinary or the Pope.  From his perspective, he's simply got influence over me, but in effect it's a conditional form of authority. 
Reply
(10-10-2012, 04:21 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 04:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I also think you miss the point that what the CE (a very valuable resource) lays out was the dominant reading of Pastor Æternus in the time of St. Pius X.
I fail to see how it was a "controverted" question. Didn't Pastor Æternus settle it? If not, why?

The article presents two ways of interpreting Pastor Æternus.  The text you quote is, in fact, the basis for both positions.  Defining things does not always prevent arguments.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 04:40 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(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!

No it's not.  There is no cornerstone of Protestantism for one thing.  What motivated Calvinists is not the same as what motivates Baptists or Methodists. 

The fact is, Catholics pick and choose who their spiritual counselors are, the Catechism of Trent tells people to be careful about choosing their confessors,  in each of those cases,  a Catholic seeks out among the ordained who they will choose to listen to and subject themselves to their counsel. 

My local ordinary has jurisdiction and the authority that comes with it.  He can make rules, bind and loose a limited number of things, but his spiritual counsel only has authority in terms of how it conforms to the truth.   If he's teaching against the faith or in favor of some nonsensical secular policy, he has no authority over me.  If another bishop or the magisterial teaching of a dead Pope teaches in conformity with the truth against the bishop, I'm subject to the authority of tradition.   If an SSPX bishop or trad bishops echoes that magisterial teaching or teaches in conformity with the truth, I put my trust in him and in effect give him a degree of personal authority over me. 

It's not owed to him, he's not entitled to it, he can't bind and loose like the local ordinary or the Pope.  From his perspective, he's simply got influence over me, but in effect it's a conditional form of authority. 

Well, the ecclesiology you are setting forth does sound more like the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion than it does like Trent.
Reply
(10-10-2012, 11:29 AM)kingofspades Wrote: 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.

Don't bait and switch.  We were discussing "authority" which is different from "jurisdiction" 

Quote: Simple. And all those 'constructions' with emergency, necessity of the orthodoxy, tradition etc. don't make it less protestant.

I love this.  When something taught in the Catholic Church clearly and in black and white proves to be inconvenient to support one's fantasy about the Church, it becomes a "construction."  How is that not Protestant in essence and practice? 

It's the Popes that have approved the teaching on Supplied Jurisdiction, are you going defy the authority of the Pope on the very existence of these mechanisms in the Church? 

Quote: Without or even opposed to the Pope = protestant. Clear enough.

So all of those theologians and saints  in the Church that taught in certain circumstances that it is licit to resist the Pope or rebuke him are Protestant?  Who would have thought St. Paul was Protestant for resisting the Pope to his face? 

Actually the idea that the Pope is irresistible is a Protestant distortion of what the Church teaches, and it has become an adopted distortion by conservative Catholics. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)