The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have announced their conclusion that the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy are illegitimate, and called for an Imperfect General Council.
I keep thinking in practicable terms about what will happen if and when Vatican 2 is repudiated. The new adage “there is no RETVRN” keeps repeating in my mind. I wonder what of the council will inevitably be maintained, what lines will be drawn. All for the sake of how many decades of Novus Ordo inertia and perhaps some measure of prudence. Popes conceded the public statement of the Filioque to we Greeks, provided of course we professed that dogma. The Greeks themselves chose to sing it or not at the Divine Liturgy.
More and more, I believe 1962 and Roncalli might be that line. While I reject his legitimacy, I think it’ll be a harder sell for the non-sedevacantist traditionalists. That being said, I believe the pre-1955 Holy Week may be restored, for a very odd hybrid.
Further, while I believe this pseudo-imperfect council idea is folly, in these days of universal media exposure and the ubiquity of the internet, it may cause quite the stink. After all, you only need 13% adoption for the rest of a population to go along with a new memetic concept.
Still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding the problem of jurisdiction vis-a-vis an imperfect general council today.
Along those lines, it is interesting that nobody is applying ecclesia supplet to the subject (eg., didn’t +de Mallerais say that it supplied jurisdiction for everything necessary for the exercise of the apostolate?).
Short of a conversion of a number of conciliar bishops, the imperfect council solution seems a dead end, unless ecclesia supplet could cover it (but I’d need to see that worked out).
Praise be to God! May He supply the graces necessary for more and more of his workers and shepherds to come together to bring an end to this crisis and gloriously restore the Church to the consternation and dismay of all our enemies who have gloated and proudly wrecked havoc for the past 70 years and longer across the Church's faithful and the world.
Be that as it may, Christ let himself be tried by those not of a legitimate priesthood and a pagan secular overseer because God willed they be given a temporary authority however invalid and/or illicit. The same may be true today. I think it is a veneer (all the nonsense if not also the validity of the top leaders, which could be so as of I had supernatural insight and ecclesial authority to determine such a supernaturally and canonically-weighty issue) and we better remain on this ship. Just maintain old books that can be reprinted for all once God gets this mess cleared up and teach who will listen the truth about the truth. I like the Dedicated Decades booklets from the ULRA (I think is their initials). They are SSPX-affiliated or friendly, bit do not get into church politics, Vatican 2 and what not, but is like nothing changed mid-last century.
But the Judaic priesthood WAS valid and legitimate at the time (ie., the Temple veil was not rent until after the crucifixion, symbolizing the supercession of the old law with the new), as was the temporal authority of Pilate (which Jesus elsewhere acknowledged: “Give unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s…”).
I thought the Levitical priesthood was supposed to be in charge, but wasn’t by then. Jesus was of the tribe of kings and of priests and was technically a Pharisee, I’ve heard. I’m not sure the distinction of Pharisees and Saduccees as distinct or not from Levites. John was a Levite and was preaching. I don’t know if he had a valid rabbihood. I heard they had training under a rabbi for 20 years before going off as a full-fledged rabbi and usually attached their master’s name to theirs, but neither Jesus nor John seemed to have that. Of course, Jesus needed none of that cred, but it helped in gaining disciples.
None of that probably made them temple elders, but I once heard the latter were usurpers put in charge by the Hasmodians.
An imperfect general council electing a pope would be fraught with difficulties: not least of all gaining anywhere near universal acceptance among traditionalists including sedes.. Barring his election being accompanied with heavenly signs annd wonders it would be akin to "out of the frying pan and into fire." Even with miraculous signs we're probably too affected by the awareness of antichrist lurking on the horizon to place our trust In such.
If the traditional clergy stood united under the newly elected Pope, the rest of the faithful would really have no choice but to accept and acquiesce. Where else would they go for their sacraments, how else could they sustain the visible Church in such a scenario without pastors to adhere to? It'd be absurd.
Should such a day come God willing, no doubt He knows it'd be necessary for the traditional clergy to stand in unison under His vicar and would provide the graces necessary for them to do so accordingly.
Do you think that it is likely that they will? The RCI and IMBC will not. SGG seem unlikely to, and even less. Then there is the question of the SSPX and any bishops, at least putative bishops, who have remained Catholic in the Novus Ordo milieu.
Certainly it's quite unlikely to impossible from purely human metrics and means for such a scenario to play out successfully.
Hence why I believe if this is God's will and path He will provide the miraculous graces of conversion to our disparate clergymen to cooperate and work together for the restoration of the Church in much a similar way as He did after the 70 years of chaos from the Great Western Schism. Likewise in that tune there were three enemy factions rending the Church asunder and yet when God had said enough is enough they all miraculously came together despite their worst efforts and through the imperfect general council brought the schism to an end.
For all human metrics this would have been considered impossible but to God all things are possible.
I see our modern crisis in much the same way. I don't judge things by the willingness or unwillingness merely of our human actors but by the capability of God and His power to move hearts for the restoration of His Church.
Whether He will choose to bless us with such a restoration is yet to be seen but I hope and pray we may be lucky enough to see it in our lifetimes, and if we are then no doubt the gridlock amongst our clergy will be healed by God's miraculous and extraordinary outpouring of charity and unity, if not also with miracles and signs to boot
Says it all. Work like it depends on us, knowing it all depends on God. Unamsanctam has made it clear that it will not act unilaterally. Really it cannot. It is, at best, an instrumental cause.
At this point, after almost 68 years of false popes leading a false church, I believe miraculous divine intervention is needed. It's interesting that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
I am so happy, even overjoyed! I have known the Traditionalist Redemptorists since they were on the Isle of Shepey; it is great to see them back out of the darkness of the Conciliar/Synodal sect.
However, the election of a Pope is beyond our (trad) power.
It is good to announce this but the Imperfect general council is impossible. In my opinion, real Cardinals who are eligible to elect Popes are all dead, the remaining traditional Catholic Bishops have no jurisdiction power, they only have sacramental power to take care of souls. It means we can’t have no other Popes until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again to judge the living and the death. We are in desperate situation but the Divine Providence will protect the Church until end of time. All we can do is keeping the Catholic faith and hope that we can die with it. May our Lady intercede and obtain for us the final perseverance.
Well isn‘t that line of thinking impossible? I think Vatikan I teached that there will be successive popes intim the end of time. If the sede is vacant, then it is of faith that there will be a true pope until the world ends.
The Church is always able to elect the Roman Pontiff.
As Bellarmine wrote in De Conciliis: "For if the cardinals could not elect the Pope, or if they did not elect him, or certainly if they all died at the same time, or if a real doubt arose for some other reason about the election, an [imperfect ecumenical council would discern the election of the future Pope..."
Not really. What St. Bellarmine said is called speculative theology and even in that case, the remaining Bishops or clergymen have jurisdiction power because they were all ordained or consecrated with Pope’s mandate. At present, all traditional Bishops were consecrated without Pope mandate, they do not have any authority or jurisdiction power to rule, they only have potency to act or sacramental power to sanctify souls. They can’t elect Popes. Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is a monarchy, all authority flows from the Pope down to Bishops, then Bishops to Priests. After Pope Pius XII died, no authority left for remaining clergymen. Those guys in white trappings from Roncalli to Prevost are not Popes. All real Cardinals death, and now Vatican are full of invalid cardinals /bishops. They are not of Catholic Church.
1. Yes, I know this fatalistic approach juridical blindness that goes against promises of Our Lord. With this kind of approach - you reached a dead end and are already dead.
Cardinals also do not possess jurisdiction - only a special right to vote, based on positive law (and not belonging to Status Ecclesiae - through over ten centuries of history of the Church popes were not elected by cardinals). In the past Holy Roman Emperors also did not have jurisdiction, yet some popes of the 10th and 11th century were introduced onto the Petrine Chair with emperors or even kings - as in case of Henry III of Germany and Clement II - taking pivotal part (by nomination or confirmation) and they are recognized as valid.
2. At the same time: in extraordinary situations positive law (lex) does not provide for the Church has a right of recourse to law in the larger sense (ius) including ancient customs. This is what Bellarmine proposed. This is what the Council of Constance in fact did to end the Western Schism (election by representatives of five nationes and before participation of bishops created by certain John XXIII as council fathers and by certain Gregory XII, I should say too, as he became to be held as the pope somewhere at the end of the 19th century or in 1st half of the 20th century upon the basis of the verdict of revisionist historians who also did not hold any jurisdiction). At the moment of his election Martin V was even no deacon and already took part in election of two people considered today (but not on that day) as antipopes - Alexander V and John XXIII, and one council - considered today as schismatic (which proclaimed anathema against Gregory XII quoted by Baronius for example), he was also earlier deposed by Gregory XII of his cardinalate and in 1411 solemnly excommunicated by the same. He even ran away with John XXIII from Constance to come back and take part in his deposition.
BTW, Bellarmine says that he does not know who was the pope in the 1410's - before Martin's V election:
"I respond that John XXIII was not a completely certain and indubitable Pontiff; therefore, it is not necessary to defend him, for at the time there were three who were said to be Popes: Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII, and it was
not easy to judge which one of them was the true and legitimate Pope, since there were learned supporters for each one of them" (De Romano Pontifice)
3. As for the right of bishops not being ordinaries to participate in the general council.
In De Conciliis Bellarmine says:
"But the teaching of Catholics is that only greater prelates, that is
Bishops, ordinarily have a right to a decisive vote in general and provincial
Councils, while from privilege and also custom, even Cardinals, Abbots
and the Generals of Orders, even if they are not Bishops. Furthermore,
from priests and other lesser clergy only some learned men are called who
assist in the disputation, or in other ministries."
He says - bishops not bishops "having jurisdiction".
Moreover, looking at past ecumenical councils e.g. Vatican Council:
"Titular bishops, i.e. bishops not ruling a diocese, had equal rights with other bishops at the Vatican Council (1869-70), where 117 of them were present." (cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia: General Councils)
To sum it up: anachronistic, pseudo-legalistic oversimplifications of the Church history do not hold.
The problem is that both of you are only half right.
YES, the teaching of Catholic theologians is that the Church is always able to elect the Pope (since it is a perfect society - John, look up what it means), and that in the absence of the Cardinals, the election would either be done by the clergy of Rome, or by the bishops of the whole Church, or by a combination of both.
And YES, the Traditionalist bishops alone cannot validly elect the Pope or have a general council just by themselves, because they don't have authority or power in the Church (since no one has given it to them).
But NO, the Church and the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction don't lose their authority when the Pope dies, because that power to rule in the Church (habitual jurisdiction) and a see in which to exercise that power was given to them by the Pope, and it remains until those bishops die, or resign, or defect, or are deposed.
And NO, papal elections done by emperors were never valid, it was either the proper electors who afterward confirmed the election that made them valid, or the pacific and universal adherence of the Church.
Also NO, the Church doesn't affirm the right of auxiliary bishops to participate in general councils. Canon Law says that if invited to an ecumenical council, they would have a vote in the council, "unless it is expressly provided otherwise in the convocation", which means that they may be denied a vote, which is something that cannot be done to those with jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that a council composed exclusively of a small number of auxiliary bishops (and from which the majority of the Catholic ordinaries are absent) would not have the authority to make any binding decisions or to elect anyone to any office, since they themselves have no ruling power.
A quote on Canon 223 from the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Volume II, 1919) of Fr. Augustine, OSB, about who must be called to a general council and why, that the right to be called emanates from jurisdiction, about auxiliary bishops, why abbots nullius (abbots who function as ordinaries of all the Catholics and parishes in their territory) are called, and how many council fathers must be present for the council to be ecumenical: (p. 220-222, emphasis in the original):
"Those who *must* be called are the *bishops*, be they patriarchs, primates, archbishops, or simple bishops, provided they are residential, and not merely titular. The reason why the residential bishops must be called lies in their twofold character of pastors and teachers. This double office they exercise in a twofold way: (1) As successors of the Apostles they share in the government of the universal Church and form a body analogous to the college of the Apostles, with whom Christ remains until the end of time. (2) As residential bishops they exercise their office in a determined district or diocese, which, however, is part and parcel of the universal Church. This power is jurisdictional in a particular sense, while the power they exercise over the hole Church is jurisdictional in a general sense, so far, namely, as they convene in council under their legitimate superior.
The next question would be, whether the right of a bishop to be called to a general council depends on episcopal consecration or jurisdiction. The Vatican Council doubtless took the view that it is a right emanating directly from jurisdiction. This is implicitly also the standpoint of our Code, otherwise a bishop confirmed by Rome but not yet consecrated, could not be called. The point is palpably illustrated by the debate concerning the admission of titular bishops. After long deliberation the commission of cardinals entrusted with the investigation of the matter decided that such bishops are to be called, as they are bound by the oath "vocatus ad synodum veniam" ["if I am called to a synod, I will come"] The *quaestio iuris* the commission would not touch. Our Code says, § 2, "etiam episcopi titulares, vocati ad concilium." The delicate question could, of course, be solved only by answering two others: (1) Is the *magisterium* an act of jurisdiction or of spiritual power
based on the power of orders? and (2) Is episcopal jurisdiction derived directly from God by virtue of consecration, or from the Pope? The commission would not solve the problem, as the time was too short. It only took the historical point of view, by which it was safely guided, thus making the council what it ought to be; "concilium episcoporum est" (it is a council of bishops), as the Council of Chalcedon says.
But there is an unmistakable hint as to the viewpoint which the Vatican Council as well as our Code take with regard to the twofold question proposed above: the office of teacher and pastor follows jurisdiction, not consecration, and this jurisdiction is supposed to be given by the Supreme Pontiff. Hence abbots *nullius* are called to the council, although many of them are not consecrated;— in the Cassinese Congregation they are not even blessed, though some are real *abbates nullius*. For these abbots *nullius* as well for other abbots mentioned S. Sanguineti, S. J., gave his votum. He proved that since the second Nicene Council (787) the monastic bodies and their superiors took a conspicuous part in the affairs of the Church, but their participation in councils was a privilege, not a strict right, though abbots possess a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, which is the reason of their being admitted to councils" But when he comes to the point — *punctum saliens* — whether all abbots, or only some of them, should be admitted, Fr. Sanguineti's conclusions seem not to tally with his premises. For in the Benedictine Order all abbots *regiminis* are endowed with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, and neither the Abbot Primate nor the Abbot President possesses real jurisdiction over the individual abbots. Hence the distinction between heads of monastic congregations and superiors of single autonomous monasteries is merely extrinsic. We fail to perceive the intrinsic reason of the distinction made, upon the opinion of Sanguineti, by the commission of cardinals in 1868 and now adopted by the Code. One reason advanced at the meeting, why not all abbots should be admitted, we understand, namely, that their number would be so great as to displease the bishops. *Transeat!* The superiors of non-exempt congregations [i.e. those congregations who are subject to the local bishop] were not entitled to be present at general councils, which exclusion was logically based upon the theory of quasiepiscopal jurisdiction.
(...)
A last question may perhaps be of some juridical interest, vis., *how many fathers* must be present in order to call a council ecumenical? This question Bellarmine has answered by saying that the number cannot be defined but should be such as to constitute a moral representation of the whole Church. He adds that at least some bishops should be present from the majority of provinces. The councils of the East had but few representatives from the Occident, whose small number was supplied by the papal representatives."
To sum it up: in your vision positive law and human error of past popes (i.e. no provision for no cardinals situation) defeated successfully the Church of God.
"After Pope Pius XII died, no more authority left for the Catholic Church."
Congratulations, you won, among all of the many comments here this is actually the most ridiculous sentence, and the most injurious to the Church - and it's no small feat since a few comments gave you a run for your proverbial money.
To be clear, you don't actually win anything, except this well deserved ridicule.
Are you familiar with the saying, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If not, look it up.
Speaking generally, though far from an expert, I must mention how troubling it is that so many people with very limited knowledge of Theology dare to pontificate about extremely serious things and fall into such dangerous errors with a casual ease as can only come from ignorance. It's a mark of this superficial age.
“How could we then get a true pope one day? The various theories are direct divine intervention, the material/formal thesis and an imperfect general council, the latter of which is taught by the theologian Cajetan. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)”
“Territorial jurisdiction cannot be absolutely necessary to participate in a Council and to take part in a papal election because in the past the Church has allowed this right to people lacking this jurisdiction.”
I would be very interested to learn more about the historical precedents which would be adduced to legitimize non-jurisdictional papal electors. Can you point me in the right direction?
“Historians and canonists, however, generally hold that the Roman bishopric was filled on its vacancy in the same manner as other bishoprics, that is, the election of the new pope was made by the neighbouring bishops and the clergy and faithful of Rome. Nevertheless, some maintain that the naming of the successor of St. Peter was restricted to the Roman clergy, and that the people were admitted to a part in the elections only after the time of Sylvester I (fourth century).” From ‘Papal Elections’ in the Catholic Encyclopeadia.
“Theologian Charles Journet (following Cajetan):
..in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power “of applying the Papacy to such and such a person” devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God… when the provisions of the Canon Law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be Bishop.
It is also worth noting that even if we recognise legitimate Cardinals as the Clergy of Rome, individuals who were neither Cardinals nor otherwise members of the Clergy of Rome took part in past elections, such as secular princes. (Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1: The Apostolic Hierarchy, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 480-481”
The two last references are on the Unam Sanctam site.
It seems to me that a large contingent of theology buffs, both clerical and lay, are missing the golden opportunity unamsanctam is proposing: namely a de novo consideration, seventy years out, in assembly, of POSITIVELY EVERYTHING. It is time to rethink the whole barracuda; and that process begins with foundational principles. It does not begin with the minutiae we find in the theological manuals. It does not begin with a dirty blackboard filled with everyone's scrawlings. It begins with a clean slate.
When you take a trip, you do not pack dirty underwear. Likewise, when a perfect society finds itself ground down into the most abject fragmentation and the most cacophonous disintegration - previously thought unimaginable - it begins by doing the laundry. It washes its apparel, and starts out afresh.
The hardest way to go through a small opening, is to have all your gear strapped on. The only way in is to strip yourself down. If all parties would simply agree to show up, having first left their positional rigidity packs outside the door, [ you know, the way Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli left their weapons outside Theoden's mead hall ], and quietly begin with principles, well then ....... the Holy Ghost might finally be willing to wield His Staff.
I strongly object to the idea, and you are not the only one suggesting it, that the Holy Ghost needs anything like this in order to achieve what he wants – or that there is anything about a gathering of Trad bishops that is specially able to allow this.
I think you are rather strongly objecting to one of your own ideations, or, shall we say, misconceptions. For, as far as I can detect, NO ONE attempting to further the work of unamsanctam believes anything even remotely similar to your above characterization. The Keyboard Class is ablaze with REACTION. Not many are calm. Not many are interested in lending themselves to a thoughtful consideration of what is being proposed. Not many have demonstrated a thorough comprehension of the principles underpinning this initiative. No, rather the herd is jerking and twitching as if it had been tased.
Let's be honest. The vast majority of those who are coming out strong against unamsanctam perceive it as a serious threat. A threat to what? A threat to everything they hold dear. A threat to their cash flow. A threat to their way of life. A threat to their impregnable autocephalousness. A threat to their gaudy reputations. A threat to their control of the laity. A threat to their cherished comforts. A threat to their very safety, should this initiative bring about a material persecution.
Men in the state of fear and intimidation will stop at nothing to throw off danger. And when that danger takes the form of principles, and actions pursuant to those principles, the garbage rhetoric and the fallacious and incendiary tropes are deployed en masse.
Oh yes. Tradmen are very much able to work with each other, when protecting the status quo - the managed economy - becomes a necessity.
Did it ever occur to you that our God the Holy Ghost requires conversion of hearts and minds before He performs His great works? Have ye never read the Scriptures? It's the same Holy Ghost, no?
P.S. Clearly you have strawmanned me. I suggested something about what the Holy Ghost is WILLING to do; and you characterized what I said as He being UNABLE to do. See that?
I said "suggesting", which obviously covers a range of ways including implications, even unconscious. I fully acknowledge that many or most whose words suggest such ideas do not appreciate this implication, just as those who say Leo etc have been true popes do not appreciate that their words suggest, imply or entail that this Church has defected.
However, "no-one" is a strong term. There are indeed people suggesting it.
Your various accusations for foul motives for concerns/reservations (in my case) or opposition (on the part of those who are opposed) are extremely rash, and will not be tolerated on the website. If they are repeated, you will be able to sound off with them on Twitter or Notes, but not here.
Your restatement of your original statement is making it worse. You therefore object not only to people who suggest things explicitly, but you also object to whatever their words might imply (according to your assessment of implication), and even to what they themselves do not know they are actually saying. This is intolerable.
You dispute my assertion that no one in support of this initiative affirms that the Holy Ghost is unable to work unless the imperfect council be convened. In other words, you claim that there are some who affirm that this is the only remedy possible for the Church.
Now, I'm sure you've read both the unamsanctam website, and the recent clarification. The arguments in support of this proposal, and the clarification explicitly invite objections, and hold open the possibility that the initiative as originally conceived may require correction. Furthermore the initiative has given its word that it will not proceed unilaterally or precipitously. The reason for this is the need for both discernment of spirits, and for a moral unanimity, which may never come, and which will most likely come, if it ever comes, only after a long period of incubation. The association has painstakingly avoided speaking for God. It neither affirms what He can do nor what He will do. It is waiting for Him, so to speak, to reply.
Secondly, the clarification makes note of the fact that it cannot control what its supporters say about it. You have not provided me with any example of someone who claims to support this initiative, and also affirms that the Holy Ghost either cannot or will not act except through an imperfect council. If you have such an example, I'd like to see it. I have not seen anything like that anywhere.
But for the sake of clarity, I will qualify my statement that no one attempting to further the work of unamsanctam believes that "the Holy Ghost needs anything like this in order to achieve what he wants." The qualification is this. No one who belongs to the formal association of unamsanctam - and I mean by that all those who are officially engaged in communicating with the public about it - believes according to your characterization - either articulately, or by implication, or by unconscious ideation.
I don't post on twitter. So if you kick me off here, I'll just go and cook something Italian in the kitchen.
*one* of my hang-ups about the Imperfect General Council as proposed by Unam Sanctam is the proposed participants. As it currently stands on the Unam Sanctam website, the criteria for who can participate is so loose that it is a disaster in the making (just when you think the mess can't get worse...). As though infiltration and usurpation can't happen again. Oaths can not be the criteria for who participates- Track records need to be scrutinized. Who will do this vetting?
One of the most consoling thoughts I've had since adopting the sedevacantist position is that God has given us (handed down through the centuries) everything that we need for this moment in time. Convening an Imperfect General Council would need to be done right or not at all and I'm not sure if true Catholics have the patience for it.
Right now it looks more and more likely that direct Divine intervention is the answer, so as bold a request as it is, I will pray for that.
Thank you for reporting on this important development. I would like to know more about these monks and their support for the imperfect general council.
It seems few laity believe that Traditional Bishops are capable of being used by the Holy Ghost for anything other then being 'sacrament machines (to use Bp Sanborn's term)'.
Hello. Thanks for the excellent WM Review. As to the issue, would you characterise this reluctance as prudence in the absence surety, settled Church teaching or just fear? Certainly at the outset the notion of bishops gathering is frightening people, however small and lacking in authority that gathering might be.
Thank you for this. I'd characterise the reluctance to think of themselves as more than sacrament machines to be based in the received truth justifying their consecrations. The idea that they have authority or some sort of jurisdiction is a newer idea which has emerged more recently.
As for bishops or clergy meeting, it's not for me to say really, but I think to the extent that there are foregone conclusions about what this will become, it is a bad idea, and to the extent that there are not foregone conclusions, it is a good idea.
Bishop Roy has stated explicitly that there are not foregone conclusions. Not everyone agrees with him, but he seems to be the one with the most moral authority in this, so I hope that something good comes of it all, whatever that might be.
That is what they were specifically consecrated for, to give the sacraments to the faithful, to maintain valid orders in the Latin rite, and to maintain the profession of the Catholic Faith. They are emergency (priests and) bishops.
What they were NOT consecrated for is to rule the Church, to solve this Crisis, or to elect the Pope.
All bishops are consecrated for the purpose of giving "the sacraments to the faithful, to maintain valid orders in the Latin rite, and to maintain the profession of the Catholic Faith." As to being consecrated for the purpose of ruling, is it excluded in perpetuity to 'emergency' clergy? and if so, by what law? and if by law, does that law serve God's purpose in this crisis?
To rule over the faithful and the Church is not some sort of inherent right that is being taken away by some human law from everyone who receives Holy Orders.
Only those who have explicitly received this authority from someone who possesses this authority, in an unbroken line of apostolicity of government, or those who have been canonically elected by the lawful electors according to the law of election set by the authority of the Church, have the right and duty to rule.
Since no one has given this authority to the Traditionalist bishops, then the only possible conclusion is that they don't have it.
Otherwise, where would their authority derive from? From the people? That is a condemned heresy. From someone with authority? Then show the act of appointment or election to a see. There isn't one? Well, you know the answer then.
There are a few instances in the history of the Church of extraordinary means of exercising authority in the absence of a pope. Even the laity have participated in papal elections. We cannot have a Church without the authority to rule.
I have a lot of questions concerning all this for which I would hope an Imperfect Council could give answers, otherwise it will be a continuing cycle of he said and he said and they said. This is not Catholic and to accept this 'imperfect' Church has to be wrong.
For instance, how can Catholic authority be severed from Catholic truth? "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:19-20, where Christ told His Apostles and their successors that they would ‘rule the Church visibly (Chrysostom),' and that He will ‘never depart from them [the Apostles and their successor] who believe (Jerome)'. Did Christ, then, confer authority and promise that authority to them that believe till the end of time, or until Vatican II, whichever comes first?
You seem to be confused, when it is not so difficult to understand, unless one tries to square the circle by wishful thinking.
The authority to rule exists in the Church, just as always. It is to be found in all those bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in their sees who have not publicly confessed heresy (I believe these are to be found primarily in the Eastern Catholic churches). This doesn't mean that these men are courageously fighting for the truth. Most of them could be cowards, and hiding their opposition to heresy from the Modernists. Most of them have probably adopted certain errors, intentionally or not. But this doesn't make them heretics, just bad shepherds, and we were not promised to always have good shepherds. Remember that almost all the apostles fled and hid after Our Lord was captured.
The laity have no authority in the Church, and neither do Traditionalist bishops. Why? Because no one gave us, and no one gave them, that authority. We can't just create it out of thin air, and neither can they.
A council of trad bishops without jurisdiction and authority cannot conclusively solve any question, precisely because they lack the authority, so relying on them to give you answers as if they were the shepherds and teachers that Vatican I talks about is extremely dangerous. What we can rely on is the previous teaching of the Magisterium, and of approved Catholic theologians, while we wait for the end of this Crisis and the restoration of the Church.
Don't like to read that the Church is 'laid desolate'. Sounds too close to 'the gates of Hell have prevailed'. Why can't they say 'is obscured, almost entirely hidden behind heretics who like to appear as Catholics'?
And why have they chosen Paul VI as first anti-pope? Pretty sure John XXIII was heretical, but maybe didn't promulgate it. Anyway, I'm no expert.
I welcome this declaration and the call for an imperfect Council. That Council would not have to elect a Pope, at least at first. Couldn't it simply declare to all the world that the See of Peter is vacant, and thrash out between the bishops that agreed with this point what the next step ought to be?
Mgr Guérard des Lauriers and many others in the early stages held John XXIII to have been valid, or at best doubtful. And some today (including myself) find the distinctions they made to hold, and the arguments for his illegitimacy to be inconclusive. There is merit, further, to making the "platform" or our claims as minimalist as possible.
I keep thinking in practicable terms about what will happen if and when Vatican 2 is repudiated. The new adage “there is no RETVRN” keeps repeating in my mind. I wonder what of the council will inevitably be maintained, what lines will be drawn. All for the sake of how many decades of Novus Ordo inertia and perhaps some measure of prudence. Popes conceded the public statement of the Filioque to we Greeks, provided of course we professed that dogma. The Greeks themselves chose to sing it or not at the Divine Liturgy.
More and more, I believe 1962 and Roncalli might be that line. While I reject his legitimacy, I think it’ll be a harder sell for the non-sedevacantist traditionalists. That being said, I believe the pre-1955 Holy Week may be restored, for a very odd hybrid.
Further, while I believe this pseudo-imperfect council idea is folly, in these days of universal media exposure and the ubiquity of the internet, it may cause quite the stink. After all, you only need 13% adoption for the rest of a population to go along with a new memetic concept.
Great summary. Thank you.
Still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding the problem of jurisdiction vis-a-vis an imperfect general council today.
Along those lines, it is interesting that nobody is applying ecclesia supplet to the subject (eg., didn’t +de Mallerais say that it supplied jurisdiction for everything necessary for the exercise of the apostolate?).
Short of a conversion of a number of conciliar bishops, the imperfect council solution seems a dead end, unless ecclesia supplet could cover it (but I’d need to see that worked out).
Praise be to God! May He supply the graces necessary for more and more of his workers and shepherds to come together to bring an end to this crisis and gloriously restore the Church to the consternation and dismay of all our enemies who have gloated and proudly wrecked havoc for the past 70 years and longer across the Church's faithful and the world.
Be that as it may, Christ let himself be tried by those not of a legitimate priesthood and a pagan secular overseer because God willed they be given a temporary authority however invalid and/or illicit. The same may be true today. I think it is a veneer (all the nonsense if not also the validity of the top leaders, which could be so as of I had supernatural insight and ecclesial authority to determine such a supernaturally and canonically-weighty issue) and we better remain on this ship. Just maintain old books that can be reprinted for all once God gets this mess cleared up and teach who will listen the truth about the truth. I like the Dedicated Decades booklets from the ULRA (I think is their initials). They are SSPX-affiliated or friendly, bit do not get into church politics, Vatican 2 and what not, but is like nothing changed mid-last century.
But the Judaic priesthood WAS valid and legitimate at the time (ie., the Temple veil was not rent until after the crucifixion, symbolizing the supercession of the old law with the new), as was the temporal authority of Pilate (which Jesus elsewhere acknowledged: “Give unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s…”).
I thought the Levitical priesthood was supposed to be in charge, but wasn’t by then. Jesus was of the tribe of kings and of priests and was technically a Pharisee, I’ve heard. I’m not sure the distinction of Pharisees and Saduccees as distinct or not from Levites. John was a Levite and was preaching. I don’t know if he had a valid rabbihood. I heard they had training under a rabbi for 20 years before going off as a full-fledged rabbi and usually attached their master’s name to theirs, but neither Jesus nor John seemed to have that. Of course, Jesus needed none of that cred, but it helped in gaining disciples.
None of that probably made them temple elders, but I once heard the latter were usurpers put in charge by the Hasmodians.
The invalidity happened when Caiaphas rent his robes at Christ's declaration during His inquisition.
I have been thinking of them a lot lately, wondering if they would do this. Thank you for reporting this so quickly.
Ave Maria!
An imperfect general council electing a pope would be fraught with difficulties: not least of all gaining anywhere near universal acceptance among traditionalists including sedes.. Barring his election being accompanied with heavenly signs annd wonders it would be akin to "out of the frying pan and into fire." Even with miraculous signs we're probably too affected by the awareness of antichrist lurking on the horizon to place our trust In such.
If the traditional clergy stood united under the newly elected Pope, the rest of the faithful would really have no choice but to accept and acquiesce. Where else would they go for their sacraments, how else could they sustain the visible Church in such a scenario without pastors to adhere to? It'd be absurd.
Should such a day come God willing, no doubt He knows it'd be necessary for the traditional clergy to stand in unison under His vicar and would provide the graces necessary for them to do so accordingly.
Do you think that it is likely that they will? The RCI and IMBC will not. SGG seem unlikely to, and even less. Then there is the question of the SSPX and any bishops, at least putative bishops, who have remained Catholic in the Novus Ordo milieu.
Certainly it's quite unlikely to impossible from purely human metrics and means for such a scenario to play out successfully.
Hence why I believe if this is God's will and path He will provide the miraculous graces of conversion to our disparate clergymen to cooperate and work together for the restoration of the Church in much a similar way as He did after the 70 years of chaos from the Great Western Schism. Likewise in that tune there were three enemy factions rending the Church asunder and yet when God had said enough is enough they all miraculously came together despite their worst efforts and through the imperfect general council brought the schism to an end.
For all human metrics this would have been considered impossible but to God all things are possible.
I see our modern crisis in much the same way. I don't judge things by the willingness or unwillingness merely of our human actors but by the capability of God and His power to move hearts for the restoration of His Church.
Whether He will choose to bless us with such a restoration is yet to be seen but I hope and pray we may be lucky enough to see it in our lifetimes, and if we are then no doubt the gridlock amongst our clergy will be healed by God's miraculous and extraordinary outpouring of charity and unity, if not also with miracles and signs to boot
Says it all. Work like it depends on us, knowing it all depends on God. Unamsanctam has made it clear that it will not act unilaterally. Really it cannot. It is, at best, an instrumental cause.
At this point, after almost 68 years of false popes leading a false church, I believe miraculous divine intervention is needed. It's interesting that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
I am so happy, even overjoyed! I have known the Traditionalist Redemptorists since they were on the Isle of Shepey; it is great to see them back out of the darkness of the Conciliar/Synodal sect.
However, the election of a Pope is beyond our (trad) power.
It is good to announce this but the Imperfect general council is impossible. In my opinion, real Cardinals who are eligible to elect Popes are all dead, the remaining traditional Catholic Bishops have no jurisdiction power, they only have sacramental power to take care of souls. It means we can’t have no other Popes until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again to judge the living and the death. We are in desperate situation but the Divine Providence will protect the Church until end of time. All we can do is keeping the Catholic faith and hope that we can die with it. May our Lady intercede and obtain for us the final perseverance.
Well isn‘t that line of thinking impossible? I think Vatikan I teached that there will be successive popes intim the end of time. If the sede is vacant, then it is of faith that there will be a true pope until the world ends.
The Church is always able to elect the Roman Pontiff.
As Bellarmine wrote in De Conciliis: "For if the cardinals could not elect the Pope, or if they did not elect him, or certainly if they all died at the same time, or if a real doubt arose for some other reason about the election, an [imperfect ecumenical council would discern the election of the future Pope..."
Not really. What St. Bellarmine said is called speculative theology and even in that case, the remaining Bishops or clergymen have jurisdiction power because they were all ordained or consecrated with Pope’s mandate. At present, all traditional Bishops were consecrated without Pope mandate, they do not have any authority or jurisdiction power to rule, they only have potency to act or sacramental power to sanctify souls. They can’t elect Popes. Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is a monarchy, all authority flows from the Pope down to Bishops, then Bishops to Priests. After Pope Pius XII died, no authority left for remaining clergymen. Those guys in white trappings from Roncalli to Prevost are not Popes. All real Cardinals death, and now Vatican are full of invalid cardinals /bishops. They are not of Catholic Church.
1. Yes, I know this fatalistic approach juridical blindness that goes against promises of Our Lord. With this kind of approach - you reached a dead end and are already dead.
Cardinals also do not possess jurisdiction - only a special right to vote, based on positive law (and not belonging to Status Ecclesiae - through over ten centuries of history of the Church popes were not elected by cardinals). In the past Holy Roman Emperors also did not have jurisdiction, yet some popes of the 10th and 11th century were introduced onto the Petrine Chair with emperors or even kings - as in case of Henry III of Germany and Clement II - taking pivotal part (by nomination or confirmation) and they are recognized as valid.
2. At the same time: in extraordinary situations positive law (lex) does not provide for the Church has a right of recourse to law in the larger sense (ius) including ancient customs. This is what Bellarmine proposed. This is what the Council of Constance in fact did to end the Western Schism (election by representatives of five nationes and before participation of bishops created by certain John XXIII as council fathers and by certain Gregory XII, I should say too, as he became to be held as the pope somewhere at the end of the 19th century or in 1st half of the 20th century upon the basis of the verdict of revisionist historians who also did not hold any jurisdiction). At the moment of his election Martin V was even no deacon and already took part in election of two people considered today (but not on that day) as antipopes - Alexander V and John XXIII, and one council - considered today as schismatic (which proclaimed anathema against Gregory XII quoted by Baronius for example), he was also earlier deposed by Gregory XII of his cardinalate and in 1411 solemnly excommunicated by the same. He even ran away with John XXIII from Constance to come back and take part in his deposition.
BTW, Bellarmine says that he does not know who was the pope in the 1410's - before Martin's V election:
"I respond that John XXIII was not a completely certain and indubitable Pontiff; therefore, it is not necessary to defend him, for at the time there were three who were said to be Popes: Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII, and it was
not easy to judge which one of them was the true and legitimate Pope, since there were learned supporters for each one of them" (De Romano Pontifice)
3. As for the right of bishops not being ordinaries to participate in the general council.
In De Conciliis Bellarmine says:
"But the teaching of Catholics is that only greater prelates, that is
Bishops, ordinarily have a right to a decisive vote in general and provincial
Councils, while from privilege and also custom, even Cardinals, Abbots
and the Generals of Orders, even if they are not Bishops. Furthermore,
from priests and other lesser clergy only some learned men are called who
assist in the disputation, or in other ministries."
He says - bishops not bishops "having jurisdiction".
Moreover, looking at past ecumenical councils e.g. Vatican Council:
"Titular bishops, i.e. bishops not ruling a diocese, had equal rights with other bishops at the Vatican Council (1869-70), where 117 of them were present." (cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia: General Councils)
To sum it up: anachronistic, pseudo-legalistic oversimplifications of the Church history do not hold.
The problem is that both of you are only half right.
YES, the teaching of Catholic theologians is that the Church is always able to elect the Pope (since it is a perfect society - John, look up what it means), and that in the absence of the Cardinals, the election would either be done by the clergy of Rome, or by the bishops of the whole Church, or by a combination of both.
And YES, the Traditionalist bishops alone cannot validly elect the Pope or have a general council just by themselves, because they don't have authority or power in the Church (since no one has given it to them).
But NO, the Church and the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction don't lose their authority when the Pope dies, because that power to rule in the Church (habitual jurisdiction) and a see in which to exercise that power was given to them by the Pope, and it remains until those bishops die, or resign, or defect, or are deposed.
And NO, papal elections done by emperors were never valid, it was either the proper electors who afterward confirmed the election that made them valid, or the pacific and universal adherence of the Church.
Also NO, the Church doesn't affirm the right of auxiliary bishops to participate in general councils. Canon Law says that if invited to an ecumenical council, they would have a vote in the council, "unless it is expressly provided otherwise in the convocation", which means that they may be denied a vote, which is something that cannot be done to those with jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that a council composed exclusively of a small number of auxiliary bishops (and from which the majority of the Catholic ordinaries are absent) would not have the authority to make any binding decisions or to elect anyone to any office, since they themselves have no ruling power.
A quote on Canon 223 from the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Volume II, 1919) of Fr. Augustine, OSB, about who must be called to a general council and why, that the right to be called emanates from jurisdiction, about auxiliary bishops, why abbots nullius (abbots who function as ordinaries of all the Catholics and parishes in their territory) are called, and how many council fathers must be present for the council to be ecumenical: (p. 220-222, emphasis in the original):
"Those who *must* be called are the *bishops*, be they patriarchs, primates, archbishops, or simple bishops, provided they are residential, and not merely titular. The reason why the residential bishops must be called lies in their twofold character of pastors and teachers. This double office they exercise in a twofold way: (1) As successors of the Apostles they share in the government of the universal Church and form a body analogous to the college of the Apostles, with whom Christ remains until the end of time. (2) As residential bishops they exercise their office in a determined district or diocese, which, however, is part and parcel of the universal Church. This power is jurisdictional in a particular sense, while the power they exercise over the hole Church is jurisdictional in a general sense, so far, namely, as they convene in council under their legitimate superior.
The next question would be, whether the right of a bishop to be called to a general council depends on episcopal consecration or jurisdiction. The Vatican Council doubtless took the view that it is a right emanating directly from jurisdiction. This is implicitly also the standpoint of our Code, otherwise a bishop confirmed by Rome but not yet consecrated, could not be called. The point is palpably illustrated by the debate concerning the admission of titular bishops. After long deliberation the commission of cardinals entrusted with the investigation of the matter decided that such bishops are to be called, as they are bound by the oath "vocatus ad synodum veniam" ["if I am called to a synod, I will come"] The *quaestio iuris* the commission would not touch. Our Code says, § 2, "etiam episcopi titulares, vocati ad concilium." The delicate question could, of course, be solved only by answering two others: (1) Is the *magisterium* an act of jurisdiction or of spiritual power
based on the power of orders? and (2) Is episcopal jurisdiction derived directly from God by virtue of consecration, or from the Pope? The commission would not solve the problem, as the time was too short. It only took the historical point of view, by which it was safely guided, thus making the council what it ought to be; "concilium episcoporum est" (it is a council of bishops), as the Council of Chalcedon says.
But there is an unmistakable hint as to the viewpoint which the Vatican Council as well as our Code take with regard to the twofold question proposed above: the office of teacher and pastor follows jurisdiction, not consecration, and this jurisdiction is supposed to be given by the Supreme Pontiff. Hence abbots *nullius* are called to the council, although many of them are not consecrated;— in the Cassinese Congregation they are not even blessed, though some are real *abbates nullius*. For these abbots *nullius* as well for other abbots mentioned S. Sanguineti, S. J., gave his votum. He proved that since the second Nicene Council (787) the monastic bodies and their superiors took a conspicuous part in the affairs of the Church, but their participation in councils was a privilege, not a strict right, though abbots possess a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, which is the reason of their being admitted to councils" But when he comes to the point — *punctum saliens* — whether all abbots, or only some of them, should be admitted, Fr. Sanguineti's conclusions seem not to tally with his premises. For in the Benedictine Order all abbots *regiminis* are endowed with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, and neither the Abbot Primate nor the Abbot President possesses real jurisdiction over the individual abbots. Hence the distinction between heads of monastic congregations and superiors of single autonomous monasteries is merely extrinsic. We fail to perceive the intrinsic reason of the distinction made, upon the opinion of Sanguineti, by the commission of cardinals in 1868 and now adopted by the Code. One reason advanced at the meeting, why not all abbots should be admitted, we understand, namely, that their number would be so great as to displease the bishops. *Transeat!* The superiors of non-exempt congregations [i.e. those congregations who are subject to the local bishop] were not entitled to be present at general councils, which exclusion was logically based upon the theory of quasiepiscopal jurisdiction.
(...)
A last question may perhaps be of some juridical interest, vis., *how many fathers* must be present in order to call a council ecumenical? This question Bellarmine has answered by saying that the number cannot be defined but should be such as to constitute a moral representation of the whole Church. He adds that at least some bishops should be present from the majority of provinces. The councils of the East had but few representatives from the Occident, whose small number was supplied by the papal representatives."
And election rights are juridical(legal), not sacramental. After Pope Pius XII died, no more authority left for the Catholic Church.
To sum it up: in your vision positive law and human error of past popes (i.e. no provision for no cardinals situation) defeated successfully the Church of God.
John, you said:
"After Pope Pius XII died, no more authority left for the Catholic Church."
Congratulations, you won, among all of the many comments here this is actually the most ridiculous sentence, and the most injurious to the Church - and it's no small feat since a few comments gave you a run for your proverbial money.
To be clear, you don't actually win anything, except this well deserved ridicule.
Are you familiar with the saying, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If not, look it up.
Speaking generally, though far from an expert, I must mention how troubling it is that so many people with very limited knowledge of Theology dare to pontificate about extremely serious things and fall into such dangerous errors with a casual ease as can only come from ignorance. It's a mark of this superficial age.
Deo gratias.
“How could we then get a true pope one day? The various theories are direct divine intervention, the material/formal thesis and an imperfect general council, the latter of which is taught by the theologian Cajetan. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)”
“Territorial jurisdiction cannot be absolutely necessary to participate in a Council and to take part in a papal election because in the past the Church has allowed this right to people lacking this jurisdiction.”
I would be very interested to learn more about the historical precedents which would be adduced to legitimize non-jurisdictional papal electors. Can you point me in the right direction?
“Historians and canonists, however, generally hold that the Roman bishopric was filled on its vacancy in the same manner as other bishoprics, that is, the election of the new pope was made by the neighbouring bishops and the clergy and faithful of Rome. Nevertheless, some maintain that the naming of the successor of St. Peter was restricted to the Roman clergy, and that the people were admitted to a part in the elections only after the time of Sylvester I (fourth century).” From ‘Papal Elections’ in the Catholic Encyclopeadia.
“Theologian Charles Journet (following Cajetan):
..in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power “of applying the Papacy to such and such a person” devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God… when the provisions of the Canon Law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be Bishop.
It is also worth noting that even if we recognise legitimate Cardinals as the Clergy of Rome, individuals who were neither Cardinals nor otherwise members of the Clergy of Rome took part in past elections, such as secular princes. (Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1: The Apostolic Hierarchy, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 480-481”
The two last references are on the Unam Sanctam site.
It seems to me that a large contingent of theology buffs, both clerical and lay, are missing the golden opportunity unamsanctam is proposing: namely a de novo consideration, seventy years out, in assembly, of POSITIVELY EVERYTHING. It is time to rethink the whole barracuda; and that process begins with foundational principles. It does not begin with the minutiae we find in the theological manuals. It does not begin with a dirty blackboard filled with everyone's scrawlings. It begins with a clean slate.
When you take a trip, you do not pack dirty underwear. Likewise, when a perfect society finds itself ground down into the most abject fragmentation and the most cacophonous disintegration - previously thought unimaginable - it begins by doing the laundry. It washes its apparel, and starts out afresh.
The hardest way to go through a small opening, is to have all your gear strapped on. The only way in is to strip yourself down. If all parties would simply agree to show up, having first left their positional rigidity packs outside the door, [ you know, the way Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli left their weapons outside Theoden's mead hall ], and quietly begin with principles, well then ....... the Holy Ghost might finally be willing to wield His Staff.
Good observation. The right kind of dialogue for a change.
I strongly object to the idea, and you are not the only one suggesting it, that the Holy Ghost needs anything like this in order to achieve what he wants – or that there is anything about a gathering of Trad bishops that is specially able to allow this.
I think you are rather strongly objecting to one of your own ideations, or, shall we say, misconceptions. For, as far as I can detect, NO ONE attempting to further the work of unamsanctam believes anything even remotely similar to your above characterization. The Keyboard Class is ablaze with REACTION. Not many are calm. Not many are interested in lending themselves to a thoughtful consideration of what is being proposed. Not many have demonstrated a thorough comprehension of the principles underpinning this initiative. No, rather the herd is jerking and twitching as if it had been tased.
Let's be honest. The vast majority of those who are coming out strong against unamsanctam perceive it as a serious threat. A threat to what? A threat to everything they hold dear. A threat to their cash flow. A threat to their way of life. A threat to their impregnable autocephalousness. A threat to their gaudy reputations. A threat to their control of the laity. A threat to their cherished comforts. A threat to their very safety, should this initiative bring about a material persecution.
Men in the state of fear and intimidation will stop at nothing to throw off danger. And when that danger takes the form of principles, and actions pursuant to those principles, the garbage rhetoric and the fallacious and incendiary tropes are deployed en masse.
Oh yes. Tradmen are very much able to work with each other, when protecting the status quo - the managed economy - becomes a necessity.
Did it ever occur to you that our God the Holy Ghost requires conversion of hearts and minds before He performs His great works? Have ye never read the Scriptures? It's the same Holy Ghost, no?
P.S. Clearly you have strawmanned me. I suggested something about what the Holy Ghost is WILLING to do; and you characterized what I said as He being UNABLE to do. See that?
I said "suggesting", which obviously covers a range of ways including implications, even unconscious. I fully acknowledge that many or most whose words suggest such ideas do not appreciate this implication, just as those who say Leo etc have been true popes do not appreciate that their words suggest, imply or entail that this Church has defected.
However, "no-one" is a strong term. There are indeed people suggesting it.
Your various accusations for foul motives for concerns/reservations (in my case) or opposition (on the part of those who are opposed) are extremely rash, and will not be tolerated on the website. If they are repeated, you will be able to sound off with them on Twitter or Notes, but not here.
Your restatement of your original statement is making it worse. You therefore object not only to people who suggest things explicitly, but you also object to whatever their words might imply (according to your assessment of implication), and even to what they themselves do not know they are actually saying. This is intolerable.
You dispute my assertion that no one in support of this initiative affirms that the Holy Ghost is unable to work unless the imperfect council be convened. In other words, you claim that there are some who affirm that this is the only remedy possible for the Church.
Now, I'm sure you've read both the unamsanctam website, and the recent clarification. The arguments in support of this proposal, and the clarification explicitly invite objections, and hold open the possibility that the initiative as originally conceived may require correction. Furthermore the initiative has given its word that it will not proceed unilaterally or precipitously. The reason for this is the need for both discernment of spirits, and for a moral unanimity, which may never come, and which will most likely come, if it ever comes, only after a long period of incubation. The association has painstakingly avoided speaking for God. It neither affirms what He can do nor what He will do. It is waiting for Him, so to speak, to reply.
Secondly, the clarification makes note of the fact that it cannot control what its supporters say about it. You have not provided me with any example of someone who claims to support this initiative, and also affirms that the Holy Ghost either cannot or will not act except through an imperfect council. If you have such an example, I'd like to see it. I have not seen anything like that anywhere.
But for the sake of clarity, I will qualify my statement that no one attempting to further the work of unamsanctam believes that "the Holy Ghost needs anything like this in order to achieve what he wants." The qualification is this. No one who belongs to the formal association of unamsanctam - and I mean by that all those who are officially engaged in communicating with the public about it - believes according to your characterization - either articulately, or by implication, or by unconscious ideation.
I don't post on twitter. So if you kick me off here, I'll just go and cook something Italian in the kitchen.
Happy Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross!
I have no objected to the clarification, and in fact I welcomed it.
Very good! I'm still going to make something Italian though! LOL!
Hooey.
*one* of my hang-ups about the Imperfect General Council as proposed by Unam Sanctam is the proposed participants. As it currently stands on the Unam Sanctam website, the criteria for who can participate is so loose that it is a disaster in the making (just when you think the mess can't get worse...). As though infiltration and usurpation can't happen again. Oaths can not be the criteria for who participates- Track records need to be scrutinized. Who will do this vetting?
One of the most consoling thoughts I've had since adopting the sedevacantist position is that God has given us (handed down through the centuries) everything that we need for this moment in time. Convening an Imperfect General Council would need to be done right or not at all and I'm not sure if true Catholics have the patience for it.
Right now it looks more and more likely that direct Divine intervention is the answer, so as bold a request as it is, I will pray for that.
Thank you for reporting on this important development. I would like to know more about these monks and their support for the imperfect general council.
It seems few laity believe that Traditional Bishops are capable of being used by the Holy Ghost for anything other then being 'sacrament machines (to use Bp Sanborn's term)'.
Indeed, including most of the traditional bishops themselves until recently.
Hello. Thanks for the excellent WM Review. As to the issue, would you characterise this reluctance as prudence in the absence surety, settled Church teaching or just fear? Certainly at the outset the notion of bishops gathering is frightening people, however small and lacking in authority that gathering might be.
Thank you for this. I'd characterise the reluctance to think of themselves as more than sacrament machines to be based in the received truth justifying their consecrations. The idea that they have authority or some sort of jurisdiction is a newer idea which has emerged more recently.
As for bishops or clergy meeting, it's not for me to say really, but I think to the extent that there are foregone conclusions about what this will become, it is a bad idea, and to the extent that there are not foregone conclusions, it is a good idea.
Bishop Roy has stated explicitly that there are not foregone conclusions. Not everyone agrees with him, but he seems to be the one with the most moral authority in this, so I hope that something good comes of it all, whatever that might be.
That is what they were specifically consecrated for, to give the sacraments to the faithful, to maintain valid orders in the Latin rite, and to maintain the profession of the Catholic Faith. They are emergency (priests and) bishops.
What they were NOT consecrated for is to rule the Church, to solve this Crisis, or to elect the Pope.
All bishops are consecrated for the purpose of giving "the sacraments to the faithful, to maintain valid orders in the Latin rite, and to maintain the profession of the Catholic Faith." As to being consecrated for the purpose of ruling, is it excluded in perpetuity to 'emergency' clergy? and if so, by what law? and if by law, does that law serve God's purpose in this crisis?
To rule over the faithful and the Church is not some sort of inherent right that is being taken away by some human law from everyone who receives Holy Orders.
Only those who have explicitly received this authority from someone who possesses this authority, in an unbroken line of apostolicity of government, or those who have been canonically elected by the lawful electors according to the law of election set by the authority of the Church, have the right and duty to rule.
Since no one has given this authority to the Traditionalist bishops, then the only possible conclusion is that they don't have it.
Otherwise, where would their authority derive from? From the people? That is a condemned heresy. From someone with authority? Then show the act of appointment or election to a see. There isn't one? Well, you know the answer then.
There are a few instances in the history of the Church of extraordinary means of exercising authority in the absence of a pope. Even the laity have participated in papal elections. We cannot have a Church without the authority to rule.
I have a lot of questions concerning all this for which I would hope an Imperfect Council could give answers, otherwise it will be a continuing cycle of he said and he said and they said. This is not Catholic and to accept this 'imperfect' Church has to be wrong.
For instance, how can Catholic authority be severed from Catholic truth? "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:19-20, where Christ told His Apostles and their successors that they would ‘rule the Church visibly (Chrysostom),' and that He will ‘never depart from them [the Apostles and their successor] who believe (Jerome)'. Did Christ, then, confer authority and promise that authority to them that believe till the end of time, or until Vatican II, whichever comes first?
You seem to be confused, when it is not so difficult to understand, unless one tries to square the circle by wishful thinking.
The authority to rule exists in the Church, just as always. It is to be found in all those bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in their sees who have not publicly confessed heresy (I believe these are to be found primarily in the Eastern Catholic churches). This doesn't mean that these men are courageously fighting for the truth. Most of them could be cowards, and hiding their opposition to heresy from the Modernists. Most of them have probably adopted certain errors, intentionally or not. But this doesn't make them heretics, just bad shepherds, and we were not promised to always have good shepherds. Remember that almost all the apostles fled and hid after Our Lord was captured.
The laity have no authority in the Church, and neither do Traditionalist bishops. Why? Because no one gave us, and no one gave them, that authority. We can't just create it out of thin air, and neither can they.
A council of trad bishops without jurisdiction and authority cannot conclusively solve any question, precisely because they lack the authority, so relying on them to give you answers as if they were the shepherds and teachers that Vatican I talks about is extremely dangerous. What we can rely on is the previous teaching of the Magisterium, and of approved Catholic theologians, while we wait for the end of this Crisis and the restoration of the Church.
Don't like to read that the Church is 'laid desolate'. Sounds too close to 'the gates of Hell have prevailed'. Why can't they say 'is obscured, almost entirely hidden behind heretics who like to appear as Catholics'?
And why have they chosen Paul VI as first anti-pope? Pretty sure John XXIII was heretical, but maybe didn't promulgate it. Anyway, I'm no expert.
I welcome this declaration and the call for an imperfect Council. That Council would not have to elect a Pope, at least at first. Couldn't it simply declare to all the world that the See of Peter is vacant, and thrash out between the bishops that agreed with this point what the next step ought to be?
Mgr Guérard des Lauriers and many others in the early stages held John XXIII to have been valid, or at best doubtful. And some today (including myself) find the distinctions they made to hold, and the arguments for his illegitimacy to be inconclusive. There is merit, further, to making the "platform" or our claims as minimalist as possible.