Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[bear06]

Well, the public nature (material aspect) is not determined by how many people see it but by the nature of profession. It must be a public profession rather than a secret society, such as the Freemasons. According to this, the Catholic Church of the sedevacantists fulfills the material aspect of visibility, in my opinion. I admit I can’t really see how you can hold that the material aspect of visibility isn’t present.

Maria

The problem lies in the fact that the sedevacantists don’t see that there is anyone in authority to profess it. They see that there are heretics that are professing. I’m really not sure who they.

Let’s look at your quote from the CE:

The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie

.

Of course, our Church makes this public profession. That said, sedevacantists don’t see anyone available to make this profession. The Popes and heirarchy are heretics and therefore not even members of the Church according to sedevacantists.

From Gorman:

so they are heretics…and outside the Church by the fact of their heresy

Oh well. At least we agree on the formal aspect albeit, it seems, for a little different reason.

I’m still waiting for Gorman to respond.

]

 

[MTD]

Of course, our Church makes this public profession. That said, sedevacantists don’t see anyone available to make this profession. The Popes and heirarchy are heretics and therefore not even members of the Church according to sedevacantists.

I don’t think they believe all Catholic bishops in the world are heretics; there are sedevacantist bishops, aren’t there?

Maria

 

[bear06]

I don’t think they believe all Catholic bishops in the world are heretics; there are sedevacantist bishops, aren’t there?

Maria

Well now, this is an interesting question. The ones that went sede after they were already bishops are dead. And it would appear that the Church does not recognize the ordinations and see the persons involved in the state they were prior to the ordination attempt. Unfortunately I cannot find this in english.
212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18879.php?index=18879&lang=it And then you have your group that don’t even have a remote claim to apostolic lineage.
So, while they may declare them bishops, does the Church. Of course, their church only seen by a few would.

 

[gorman64]

Well now, this is an interesting question. The ones that went sede after they were already bishops are dead. And it would appear that the Church does not recognize the ordinations and see the persons involved in the state they were prior to the ordination attempt. Unfortunately I cannot find this in english.
212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18879.php?index=18879&lang=it And then you have your group that don’t even have a remote claim to apostolic lineage.
So, while they may declare them bishops, does the Church. Of course, their church only seen by a few would.

Dear bear06:

You might need to do some research into sacramental theology to speak to the validity of orders.

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

What are you waiting for…my picture?

 

[gorman64]

Sure. But obedience by the Taught Church to the Teaching Church is a fruit of faith and love.

Maria

Maria:

And your point is?

Gorman

 

[bear06]

Dear bear06:

You might need to do some research into sacramental theology to speak to the validity of orders.

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

What are you waiting for…my picture?

How about you save me some time and give me the argument you are alluding to?

 

[MTD]

Well now, this is an interesting question. The ones that went sede after they were already bishops are dead. And it would appear that the Church does not recognize the ordinations and see the persons involved in the state they were prior to the ordination attempt. Unfortunately I cannot find this in english.
212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18879.php?index=18879&lang=it And then you have your group that don’t even have a remote claim to apostolic lineage.
So, while they may declare them bishops, does the Church. Of course, their church only seen by a few would.

This is a rather confusing post, so let me try to clarify. You’re saying that the bishops who became sedevacantist are deceased, but that some other sedevacantists have since been ordained bishops?

Maria

 

[MTD]

And your point is?

That your argument doesn’t hold a lot of water. In other words, sedevacantists may claim that their faith prevents them from obedience to particular bishops, but I say that my faith obliges me to obedience to them, the members of the Teaching Church, over whom I have no authoritative judgment.

Maria

 

[MTD]

How about you save me some time and give me the argument you are alluding to?

It’s rather simple, bear06. The validity of orders doesn’t depend on liceity. As long as a validly ordained bishop intends to ordain and is faithful to the form and matter of the sacrament, a valid ordination takes place.

Maria

 

[bear06]

It’s rather simple, bear06. The validity of orders doesn’t depend on liceity. As long as a validly ordained bishop intends to ordain and is faithful to the form and matter of the sacrament, a valid ordination takes place.

Maria

Sigh! I realize that. It’s been shown with the SSPX bishops. Despite what you might think, a few thousand posts later I have absorbed a few things. That said, it looks as if there is some different scenario with the sedevacant bishops based on the Vatican’s reaction to them. I’m betting it has something to do in the form, matter and intent problem in the ordination area but this is a guess.

And yes, it would appear that you read my previous post correctly.

Now MTD, the debate amongst ourselves on this issue is allowing Gorman to not weigh in here. Gorman? Visibility of the Church and sedevacantists?

 

[gorman64]

That said, it looks as if there is some different scenario with the sedevacant bishops based on the Vatican’s reaction to them. I’m betting it has something to do in the form, matter and intent problem in the ordination area but this is a guess.

Dear bear06:

Some different scenario…betting…guessing…can you please be more specific. Have you read something somewhere that you can refer to?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[bear06]

Dear bear06:

Some different scenario…betting…guessing…can you please be more specific. Have you read something somewhere that you can refer to?

Yours,

Gorman

212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18879.php?index=18879&lang=it

 

[gorman64]

Dear Bear:

We have been conversing in english.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[bear06]

Dear Bear:

We have been conversing in english.

Yours,

Gorman

Sorry. Document not found in english. In short it says that the Vatican has does not recognize the ordinations of Milingo and considers those who Milingo “ordained” to have the same canonical status as they did before the ordinations. This is different from the ordinations of the SSPX bishops.

 

[gorman64]

Sorry. Document not found in english. In short it says that the Vatican has does not recognize the ordinations of Milingo and considers those who Milingo “ordained” to have the same canonical status as they did before the ordinations. This is different from the ordinations of the SSPX bishops.

Dear Bear06:

I don’t see how this Milingo character has any bearing on your original post. If he was validly consecrated…even his illicit consecrations are valid. This is of course, dependent on proper form, matter, and intention. Is that in question here?

Btw, Milingo is a NO Bishop. He sounds like a real piece of work, as well.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Maria:

I believe that you have admitted there are heretical “bishops”…you hold that they retain their offices until a formal declaration (I disagree)…

I think it is important to distinguish a person who is suspected of heresy from one who has committed the crime of pertinacious heresy in accordance with canon law.

For instance, let say Cardinal X wrote, “*we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” *in a letter to a fellow Cardinal.Under Divine and ecclesial law which was in effect prior to Vatican II, would this be considered “public” heresy? If so, would Cardinal X, at the very moment he made this public incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae? Would he be separated from the body of the Church, and if so when?

Also, can someone help me translate 1917 CIC can. 2227:

Can. 2227.1 Poena nonnisi a Romano Pontifice infligi aut declarari potest in eos de quibus in can. 1557, par. 1. par. 2. Nisi expresse nominentur, S. R. E. Cardinales sub lege poenali non comprehenduntur, nec Episcopi sub poenis latae sententiae suspensionis et interdicti.

The 1918 canon law supplement to The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding the above canon, “When not expressly mentioned, cardinals are not subject to penal laws, nor are bishops to suspension or inderdict latae sententiae (can. 2227)” (p. 29). Do you agree this is what the canon means? If so, does the above canon have any bearing on the status of above hypothetical Cardinal?

 

[bear06]

Dear Bear06:

I don’t see how this Milingo character has any bearing on your original post. If he was validly consecrated…even his illicit consecrations are valid. This is of course, dependent on proper form, matter, and intention. Is that in question here?

Btw, Milingo is a NO Bishop. He sounds like a real piece of work, as well.

Yours,

Gorman

The Vatican gave the same determination of the latter Thuc line. He was a darling for some like Fr. Gruner, not too long ago.

I’m not sure what you mean by Milingo is a “NO Bishop”. He was ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession, was he not?

Now, can we get back to the Visible Church. The current conversation has little to nothing to do with this.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

With regard to the “ the Taught Church [having] the authority to judge that they are not under the jurisdiction of a bishop based on their own private judgement of the orthodoxy of that bishop” (post #202 above), I ask what Maria, Gorman and Dave think of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians 1.6-9 (and everyone else of course)?

I believe the laity can and must discern whether any teaching is consistent with Catholic doctrine. They have the right and duty, in accord with their own competence, to manifest their opinion for the good of the Church. However, laypersons offer “opinion.” We ought not to presume that “personal opinion” on the matter is certain or authoritative.

The Church is the final arbiter for those suspected of heresy, and she has ecclesial norms which prescribe the adjudication and appeal process.

[Fraternal correction is an act of charity](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/See also: Charity Demands Fraternal Correction), even when given to a superior. Thus, that kind of fraternal correction given by St. Paul to St. Peter, and from St. Catherine to Pope Gregory is laudable. However, St. Paul never rejected what Pope St. Peter formally and authoritatively taught as Catholic doctrine, nor did he disobey the commands or reject the sacerdotal authority of Pope St. Peter.

Look here to see an example of the reverent correction which St. Catherine gave to Pope Gregory. She accuses him of neglecting his office because of self-love, but she does so charitably, respecting his authority.

However, it is important to note the difference between fraternal correction and disobedience to lawful authority. This is what St. Catherine taught with regard to obedience to the Roman Pontiff…

St. Catherine of Siena:

“Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

“Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

We must always discern whether those claiming to preach the truth are indeed preaching in accord with Catholic doctrine. The laity are indeed called to manifest their opinion for the good of the Church, with charity. Yet, all Christians are to promptly accept in Christian obedience the decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.

 

[MTD]

Sigh! I realize that. It’s been shown with the SSPX bishops. Despite what you might think, a few thousand posts later I have absorbed a few things.

I do know that, but for the sake of the discussion, you need to indicate your knowledge of these matters when posting; otherwise your posts will be answered the way they stand.

That said, it looks as if there is some different scenario with the sedevacant bishops based on the Vatican’s reaction to them. I’m betting it has something to do in the form, matter and intent problem in the ordination area but this is a guess.

The Vatican gave the same determination of the latter Thuc line.

Bear06, I can’t for the life of me figure out why you keep mentioning the Vatican’s opinion on sedevacantist ordinations; Gorman doesn’t recognize the Vatican!

Now MTD, the debate amongst ourselves on this issue is allowing Gorman to not weigh in here. Gorman? Visibility of the Church and sedevacantists?

I’m sorry, bear06, but the debate between you and me is not what’s preventing Gorman from answering your Visible Church argument.

Now, can we get back to the Visible Church. The current conversation has little to nothing to do with this.

I think it does, in a way. If it can determined that the sedevacantist bishops are not valid bishops, I’ll concede the material aspect as also lacking in the visibility of the sedevacantists’ Catholic Church.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Also, can someone help me translate 1917 CIC can. 2227:

Can. 2227.1 Poena nonnisi a Romano Pontifice infligi aut declarari potest in eos de quibus in can. 1557, par. 1. par. 2. Nisi expresse nominentur, S. R. E. Cardinales sub lege poenali non comprehenduntur, nec Episcopi sub poenis latae sententiae suspensionis et interdicti.

I’m not very good at translating canon law, and I’m particularly unsure about the first sentence, but I’ll give it a stab:
Only by the Roman Pontiff can a penalty be imposed or declared upon those about whom [is spoken?] in can. 1557, par. 1, par. 2. Unless they be expressly named, S. R. E. Cardinals are not comprehended (sorry, couldn’t come up with a better translation) under penal law, nor Bishops under the penalty of latae sententiae suspension and interdict.

Maria