Episcopal insignia = liturgical vestments

[AlexV]

It’s not “immature” to take scandal at sacred symbols of office being handed over to heretics.

It’s scandal.

You didn’t utter one word on this thread when a supposedly Catholic poster called half the planet irrelevant and immaterial. But you go after those who challenged an action of your pop star hero.

Plenty of nice presents a pope could give. Bibles, rosaries, icons, holy images, books…NOT episcopal insignia to a heretic who claims to be a bishop.

 

[bear06]

Hmmm, it hasnt? Must be my eyes but I could have sworn

that a number of people seem to be under the impression that koran kissing and bestowing Episcopal Insignias on heretics is fine because the Pope did it…

My goodness, Caesar. Did you not read the quote I gave you? Did it mention Koran Kissing? No. Here it is again for you.

1. Papal Infallibility. An odd idea seems to be going around that whatever the Holy Father says/does counts as an infallible proclaimation,

 

[bear06]

**Guess you must have dreamed it. Go check out your radical traditionalist sites. You’ve got your occasions mixed up. There is a Buddha statue on top of a tablernacle, but that was at a different papal occasion. As has been pointed out numerous times in these threads (evidently not in words sufficiently mono-syllabic), the Pope didn’t plan (“allow”) any of the things that went on at the big masses in other countries where he celebrated on papal visitations. The local bishops’s conferences plan those and put them together. Go out to California. The ugly vestments the PJPII wore when he celebrated Masses are on display, because they were provided TO him. **

Hey, you might have the story wrong too. It wasn’t a papal occasion and the pope wasn’t in the church in question, nor did the pope allow it to happen. Not only that, the Buddha was removed immediately after it was noticed (no permission was ever given by anyone) and the Buddhists were told that this wasn’t allowed and that it was an offense to the Catholic faith and the had a good lesson in the Real Presence. They even apologized for their actions.

It used to be told that the Pope said Mass with a Buddha on the Tabernacle. Thankfully the story was toned down and then finally dropped (but I see it’s been resurrected again).

 

[prv]

The episcopal insignia - including, traditionally, even such things as the colored slippers known as “buskins”…are considered vestments. They each have a symbolism, rich and quite antique; these symbolic meanings are described in the Roman Pontifical as each article is handed over to the newly consecrated bishop.

In fact, the longest part of the traditional Roman Pontifical Rite of Episcopal Consecration is the handing over of insignia.

Both Paul VI and John Paul II presented episcopal insignia to laymen. Not even priests; mere laymen. Anglican orders are invalid. No Anglican “priest” possesses Holy Orders, and all Anglican “Masses” are invalid.

Presenting episcopal insignia to laymen is called a cause for scandal. Grave scandal, for those who love dearly and respect what those insignia signify. There have been attempts by some here to justify the presentations…even to the extent of indicating that mere laymen have no business assuming the worst about Christ’s vicar.

But there, there indeed, is the heart of the sensus fidelium. The sensus fidelium tells us it is always wrong to give to laymen that which is reserved for bishops. There is no justification, no equivocation; it’s wrong. Plain and simple. And, in fact, a scandal.

Alas, it stems from a false notion of ecumenism.

Unless, of course, the priests are true priests ordained in some obscure apostolic line through some obscure church, or even yet by our own bishops who have gone their way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s not “immature” to take scandal at sacred symbols of office being handed over to heretics.

It’s scandal.

You didn’t utter one word on this thread when a supposedly Catholic poster called half the planet irrelevant and immaterial. But you go after those who challenged an action of your pop star hero.

Plenty of nice presents a pope could give. Bibles, rosaries, icons, holy images, books…NOT episcopal insignia to a heretic who claims to be a bishop.

In ONE opinion it’s scandal. And it’s only ONE opinion (sensus Alexium, not sensus fidelium). And you keep trying to tie this into my (supposedly unqualified) admiration, respect and love for the old Holy Father. I’m not saying he did not make errors, I’m saying I don’t think this one you’re currently going on about WAS an error and so it naturally follows that I don’t think it was a scandal. I don’t think HE thought he didn’t make errors, otherwise he wouldn’t have had his confessor around so often (I’ve heard anywhere from 2-4 times week to daily). My “pop star hero?” I’m not certain you really know me well enough to make that judgement and I wonder, why are you speaking in a deliberately insulting fashion about Pope John Paul II? Finally, I didn’t address the post about Africa and South America because, frankly, I try to stick to ONE topic instead of tossing out a bunch of random ones (“oh yeah, well, what about the Buddha statue?,” etc.). But if you’d like: I think Africa and South America are very important.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hey, you might have the story wrong too. It wasn’t a papal occasion and the pope wasn’t in the church in question, nor did the pope allow it to happen. Not only that, the Buddha was removed immediately after it was noticed (no permission was ever given by anyone) and the Buddhists were told that this wasn’t allowed and that it was an offense to the Catholic faith and the had a good lesson in the Real Presence. They even apologized for their actions.

It used to be told that the Pope said Mass with a Buddha on the Tabernacle. Thankfully the story was toned down and then finally dropped (but I see it’s been resurrected again).

Thanks, Bear, I’m glad to know that. Goes to show you, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And Bear’s question goes unanswered: If it’s so heaving scandalous, why do you keep going on about it? Aren’t you simply spreading scandal?

 

[bear06]

Thanks, Bear, I’m glad to know that. Goes to show you, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

I’m eagerly awaiting the Oliver Stone version.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

But you go after those who challenged an action of your pop star hero.

Pax tecum!

“Your pop star hero”? “Your pop star hero”? Even if you disagree with something that the pope did, can you not show some respect for the Vicar of Christ? You called the Successor of St. Peter “your pop star hero”. That is quite insulting. I realize you think that he made a mistake giving these things as gifts, but really, you don’t need to insult the man. Come on, Alex.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

And Bear’s question goes unanswered: If it’s so heaving scandalous, why do you keep going on about it? Aren’t you simply spreading scandal?

Pax tecum!

They have to show, as Dr. Bombay did in an earlier answer to one of my posts, that they are more Catholic than the pope. Quoting lies about Buddha statues from sedevacantist sites, bringing up the Koran incident five times in every thread, insulting the pope by calling him “your pop star”, calling a schismatic archbishop who died in a state of excommunication “the Great”…

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pax tecum!

They have to show, as Dr. Bombay did in an earlier answer to one of my posts, that they are more Catholic than the pope. Quoting lies about Buddha statues from sedevacantist sites, bringing up the Koran incident five times in every thread, insulting the pope by calling him “your pop star”, calling a schismatic archbishop who died in a state of excommunication “the Great”…

In Christ,
Rand

I rather imagine the “your pop star” was aimed at me. Still, it is insulting.

 

[AlexV]

I note that despite all the obfuscation, nobody has been able to offer a defense for handing over episcopal insignia to a mere layman beyond “it was just a gift.”

I guess this Christmas it will be dalmatics and chasubles for everyone. Just gifts, after all.

 

[AJV]

I note that despite all the obfuscation, nobody has been able to offer a defense for handing over episcopal insignia to a mere layman beyond “it was just a gift.”

I guess this Christmas it will be dalmatics and chasubles for everyone. Just gifts, after all.

Yes, but unlike the ring and pectoral cross the dalmatic and chasuble do not have a history of being worn by other people. But if you are being so generous this Christmas, I’ll skip on the chasuble- I have a small list of things I’d like instead.

 

[prv]

1. Sorry, precisely what exactly gave you that idea? I missed that argument
2. The SSPX is actually offtopic but no it is not OK to have have priests abusing the Blessed Sacrament.
3. That precisely is the question that is confusing me. Does the ring and pectoral cross represent Holy Orders or more precisely Episcopal Orders? If so, what about the extension of these to non-bishops of prelatial dignity including abbesses? [Here also I may add that the peactoral cross is not part of the old handing over of the insignia. The bishop to be consecrated vests in it with the aid of the acolytes, together with the chasuble, maniple, etc a little before the Litany and the words “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”] And as Andreas Hofer pointed out, where is the current of thought interpreting this gesture as an acceptance of Anglican Orders? Has Rome accepted the Anglican Orders as valid based on this? I was not aware of that.

Secondly when regarding Anglican Orders, as I stated earlier, one may indeed run into difficulty, and dare I say, in certain cases cannot make a statement one way or the other without a proper study. The Anglicans have a new Ordinal whereas Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae was referring to the Ordinal as given in the BCP 1662. Now it wouldn’t matter in the least if they adopted the preconciliar Roman Pontifical, their orders would not have been valid for the same reason that the addition of “for the work and office of a priest” in 1662 was held to be of no account- the Edwardian Ordinal in use for the first 100 years was incapable of conferring orders hence there was no valid minister. However many years later, the intercommunion between the Anglicans and Old Catholics have led to the presence of validly ordained Old Catholic bishops at Anglican episcopal consecrations. Therefore, it is indeed a matter for study whether the new Ordinal is capable of conferring orders. One cannot fully resort to Apostolicae Curae when dealing with it because it is substantially different including sufficiently ambiguous phrases like “the sacrifices of the new covenant”. Now to my knowledge there has been no document addressing the new Ordinal(s). All responses and dissertations (at least those that I’m aware of) on the subject have been written concerning the BCP Ordinal which is now rarely used and was not used for Williams.

They already have women “bishops,” so the case is moot, unless we can separate the churches of the Anglican Communion w/o the women “bishops” from those who do. As I understand it, not every member group of the Anglican Communion is bound to any part of the BCP of the Church of England. The fact that these Old Catholics and what not have been intermingling with the Anglicans causes no less than a few problems in regard to validity of Anglican orders, especially in regard to their new ordinal. Furthermore, in regard to the OP, was the new ordinal in use at the time of the ordination, or not, of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Was the consecrator himself ordained under Old Catholic or what-have-you rites?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I note that despite all the obfuscation, nobody has been able to offer a defense for handing over episcopal insignia to a mere layman beyond “it was just a gift.”

I guess this Christmas it will be dalmatics and chasubles for everyone. Just gifts, after all.

Well, if you’re making a list, I’d like one of those ermine lined hats the Holy Father has. It looks nice and warm, and my hair isn’t getting any thicker:

 

[marcsababa]

Popes can make mistakes. They are human after all. … mistakes in teaching are worse then mistakes in personal morality…

Allow me a little hair splitting Caesar. I hope when you refer to a pope making mistakes in teaching you are not referring to infallible teaching.

I think no one here who adheres to the Church and its LAWs would say that the past Pope made mistakes in his TEACHING. I mean teaching as referred in the canon law as:

can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

Or is anybody saying that?

I also am not very happy about the past pope kissing the koran. But that was not a moment of infallible teaching as defined by the Canon law. I also think that St. Francis was a little weird and he is reported to have admitted to being excessive in some of his self-disciplining actions. He made some mistakes, yet is recognized over all as saint.

Isn’t it safe to assume that all Popes make at least one mistake?

I seem to remember one of them outright denying Christ. Or is that my imagination?

 

[bear06]

I note that despite all the obfuscation, nobody has been able to offer a defense for handing over episcopal insignia to a mere layman beyond “it was just a gift.”

I guess this Christmas it will be dalmatics and chasubles for everyone. Just gifts, after all.

I don’t need to defend the action. When over 400 Anglican clergy and far more laity convert under my papacy, I will take action. Maybe it was the presents.

But seriously, the Holy Fathers must have done something right to bring about such mass conversions. Whatever he did, I hope that Pope Benedict does the same.

 

[AJV]

They already have women “bishops,” so the case is moot, unless we can separate the churches of the Anglican Communion w/o the women “bishops” from those who do. As I understand it, not every member group of the Anglican Communion is bound to any part of the BCP of the Church of England. The fact that these Old Catholics and what not have been intermingling with the Anglicans causes no less than a few problems in regard to validity of Anglican orders, especially in regard to their new ordinal. Furthermore, in regard to the OP, was the new ordinal in use at the time of the ordination, or not, of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Was the consecrator himself ordained under Old Catholic or what-have-you rites?

Obviously if a women bishop is consecrating or being consecrated no ordination will take place. Nevertheless, unless I am mistaken, even if a Communion ordains women, still for its male members when ordained by a valid minister using a valid form, the ordination is valid.

I did not address the Ordinals of the other parts of the Anglican Communion since it was concerning the archbishop of Canterbury and more specifically Rowan Williams. Had the archbishop been ordained under Old Catholic rites the ordination would have probably been valid since there would have been proper form and an Old Catholic bishop was also present, but he was ordainied using the new ordinal from the ASB as far as I have been able to ascertain. Sadly that Ordinal is no longer online or I would have linked to it. As I mentioned such things always have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

[rr1213]

IBut seriously, the Holy Fathers must have done something right to bring about such mass conversions.

…or the Churches of the Anglican Communion did something wrong…

 

[johnnykins]

I note that despite all the obfuscation, nobody has been able to offer a defense for handing over episcopal insignia to a mere layman beyond “it was just a gift.”

I guess this Christmas it will be dalmatics and chasubles for everyone. Just gifts, after all.

If they are just gifts - sure, why not. There is nothing wrong with giving a present of a ring or pectoral cross or the gospels or a miter or a crozier or anything else that might petain to a Bishop if such giving does not constitute a conferral of episcopal office. Glad to know you now understand. I was afraid you were being obtuse.