I was not clear. I thought Emperors called a few ecumenical councils, if not all in the first millenium, and so asked if this statement from the early 19th century was due to some reigning general consensus that all Ecumemical Councils wre called by the Pope. I mean, look at how long the “Donation of Constantine” was considered to be true - probably also well into the 19 the century.
There is an interesting tension in Cercia’s argument. He that both:
1. The succession can never truly fail.
2. Vacancies can be as long as necessary.
However, the longer the vacancy becomes, the more one naturally asks whether the means of succession themselves have survived. Cercia never specifies where the breaking point would be, because his theology requires that, ultimately, there can be none. The Church must always retain the capacity to produce a legitimate successor, however improbable the circumstances may appear.
Regarding the point of footnote 2, it is nevertheless a harrowing point for us traditional Catholics which highlights the dangers of becoming comfortable with the status quo.
For the distinction raised in the footnote applies to those Catholics who in good faith are found to be mistaken as to the true nature of the crisis. It does not do much for those Catholics who have come to the conclusion that the See is Vacant as far as I can tell.
The point being, the longer we as traditional Catholics eshew the duty the Church has to elect for herself a head, or at least eschew the discussions that would clarify what the obligation is and how to fulfill it in today's crisis, the closer we get to a true interruption in the succession which though impossible is still not the direction we want to trend towards.
What I found most interesting here is that the question is not ultimately numerical (how many years a vacancy lasts) but juridical and theological: what must remain in existence for succession to continue in principle? That seems to be the real issue under discussion.
I also suspect there is more disagreement on that point than first appears, especially between those who believe apostolic mission remains demonstrable today and those who do not.
We can be sure we have no pope and we can be sure that the Church has the means to elect another. The 'discussion', or refusal of the same, regarding that 'means' is the seeming no man's land we are expected by some to subsist in.
“Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord’s priests in common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in various lands in their stead for he said to them, Go, teach all nations. You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he thus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labors, since we are the successors in their honor. And we show forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add anything. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.” –The Letter of Pope Cœlestine to the Synod of Ephesus 17, May 8th, 431 A.D.
"that by their own authority they always convoked and ratified ecumenical councils;". Eh? Was this just sort of assumed back then?
"Their" = Roman Bishops/Popes.
I was not clear. I thought Emperors called a few ecumenical councils, if not all in the first millenium, and so asked if this statement from the early 19th century was due to some reigning general consensus that all Ecumemical Councils wre called by the Pope. I mean, look at how long the “Donation of Constantine” was considered to be true - probably also well into the 19 the century.
There is an interesting tension in Cercia’s argument. He that both:
1. The succession can never truly fail.
2. Vacancies can be as long as necessary.
However, the longer the vacancy becomes, the more one naturally asks whether the means of succession themselves have survived. Cercia never specifies where the breaking point would be, because his theology requires that, ultimately, there can be none. The Church must always retain the capacity to produce a legitimate successor, however improbable the circumstances may appear.
Regarding the point of footnote 2, it is nevertheless a harrowing point for us traditional Catholics which highlights the dangers of becoming comfortable with the status quo.
For the distinction raised in the footnote applies to those Catholics who in good faith are found to be mistaken as to the true nature of the crisis. It does not do much for those Catholics who have come to the conclusion that the See is Vacant as far as I can tell.
The point being, the longer we as traditional Catholics eshew the duty the Church has to elect for herself a head, or at least eschew the discussions that would clarify what the obligation is and how to fulfill it in today's crisis, the closer we get to a true interruption in the succession which though impossible is still not the direction we want to trend towards.
What I found most interesting here is that the question is not ultimately numerical (how many years a vacancy lasts) but juridical and theological: what must remain in existence for succession to continue in principle? That seems to be the real issue under discussion.
I also suspect there is more disagreement on that point than first appears, especially between those who believe apostolic mission remains demonstrable today and those who do not.
We can be sure we have no pope and we can be sure that the Church has the means to elect another. The 'discussion', or refusal of the same, regarding that 'means' is the seeming no man's land we are expected by some to subsist in.
“Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord’s priests in common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in various lands in their stead for he said to them, Go, teach all nations. You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he thus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labors, since we are the successors in their honor. And we show forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add anything. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.” –The Letter of Pope Cœlestine to the Synod of Ephesus 17, May 8th, 431 A.D.