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.
In terms of 'identifiable subjects' - there are 'theses' during this crisis claiming an impassable chasm between 'identifiable subjects' from the 'constitution and divine promises'. This has brought about the Cassiciacum novelty, which creates a hologram of a bridge and the Deus ex Machina necessity which doesn't bother to believe in a bridge.
"The issue is whether the Church's enduring constitution is itself identical to presently identifiable subjects of jurisdiction." I thought that is what I said. My apologies if it was unclear.
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 no assumption, the author was right, because a lot of people can call a provincial council, but no council was ever "ecumenical" (universal) unless and *until* it had the approbation of the Roman Pontiff. This is why the Second Council of Ephesus was never considered ecumenical, and why the First Council of Constantinople was considered a regional Eastern synod for a long time (it had no Latin bishops in attendance), until it was finally included in the list of ecumenical councils by Pope St. Gregory the Great (Pope from 590 to 604), but only recognizing its dogmatic pronouncements.
Therefore, it is entirely correct to say that every *ecumenical* council was convoked and ratified by the Roman Pontiff.
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.
This article put me in mind of Thomas Mann’s 1951 novel “The Holy Sinner” (referenced by Amerio Romano in Iota Unum):
“In a dispute over succession Rome finds itself without a Pope. At this time two of the bishops are visited by a vision of a bleeding lamb, which instructs them where to look for the next Pope. The two bishops set out immediately to find Gregory. After a long journey they find him, shrunken to the size of a hedgehog, living on the rock in the middle of the lake. Afterwards they take him back to the shore and he is miraculously restored to the Gregory of seventeen years ago.
At Gregory's arrival in Rome the bells of city ring out of their own accord, announcing the presence of the next Holy Roman Pontiff. Gregory goes on to become one of the wisest popes in history, and he is regarded throughout Christendom as the savior of the faith.”
Note: The book is vile smut, and not for Catholic reading. The plot summary above is from Wikipedia.
Well, no, but I do respect your POVs so would like to your thoughts here. To me, it is false to claim that every ecumenical council was called/convoked by the then reigning Roman Pontiff, as this 19th century author seems to claim. But then, that might have just been widely assumed in the west at that time.
My understanding is that it was called by Constantine. But what makes it an ecumenical council was the approval of the pope. I suppose you could say that in a sense he convoked it because of that, but that's not really the ordinary sense of the word convoked.
Legally convoking any council of bishops is a power residing with the Authority of the Church. As the Emperor Constantine did not have any authority in the Church, he could call **a** meeting/assembly/council of some sort, just as any influential and powerful layman, but he could not make it into any sort of council of the Church (not even provincial) without the approval of ecclesiastical Authority, and he could not make it into an ecumenical (i.e. universal) council without the approval of the Pope, who is the only one who possesses supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church.
I don't have a ready answer to that question – but in a sense, I guess that means no, what the priest said is not my view. If it was my view I'd have a ready answer.
Judah lacked a reigning king for longer than that, though, and yet the Son of David appeared, was acclaimed as such, and now sits on that throne eternally. Just a thought, not a certain answer.
The other day I published the following, in which a few authorities state that no limit can be given, provided certain other conditions are not met:
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.
In terms of 'identifiable subjects' - there are 'theses' during this crisis claiming an impassable chasm between 'identifiable subjects' from the 'constitution and divine promises'. This has brought about the Cassiciacum novelty, which creates a hologram of a bridge and the Deus ex Machina necessity which doesn't bother to believe in a bridge.
"The issue is whether the Church's enduring constitution is itself identical to presently identifiable subjects of jurisdiction." I thought that is what I said. My apologies if it was unclear.
"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.
I think you are right about Emperors initiating councils. In the above it seemed to me that author was just referring to Popes.
Which begs the question - what other assumptions did this 19th century fellow make that are now known to be fake and false?
There is no assumption, the author was right, because a lot of people can call a provincial council, but no council was ever "ecumenical" (universal) unless and *until* it had the approbation of the Roman Pontiff. This is why the Second Council of Ephesus was never considered ecumenical, and why the First Council of Constantinople was considered a regional Eastern synod for a long time (it had no Latin bishops in attendance), until it was finally included in the list of ecumenical councils by Pope St. Gregory the Great (Pope from 590 to 604), but only recognizing its dogmatic pronouncements.
Therefore, it is entirely correct to say that every *ecumenical* council was convoked and ratified by the Roman Pontiff.
Are you saying First Nicea was called/convoked by the then reigning Roman Pontiff?
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.
This article put me in mind of Thomas Mann’s 1951 novel “The Holy Sinner” (referenced by Amerio Romano in Iota Unum):
“In a dispute over succession Rome finds itself without a Pope. At this time two of the bishops are visited by a vision of a bleeding lamb, which instructs them where to look for the next Pope. The two bishops set out immediately to find Gregory. After a long journey they find him, shrunken to the size of a hedgehog, living on the rock in the middle of the lake. Afterwards they take him back to the shore and he is miraculously restored to the Gregory of seventeen years ago.
At Gregory's arrival in Rome the bells of city ring out of their own accord, announcing the presence of the next Holy Roman Pontiff. Gregory goes on to become one of the wisest popes in history, and he is regarded throughout Christendom as the savior of the faith.”
Note: The book is vile smut, and not for Catholic reading. The plot summary above is from Wikipedia.
So it is your firm belief that First Nicea was convoked by the Roman Pontiff?
Are you talking to me?
Well, no, but I do respect your POVs so would like to your thoughts here. To me, it is false to claim that every ecumenical council was called/convoked by the then reigning Roman Pontiff, as this 19th century author seems to claim. But then, that might have just been widely assumed in the west at that time.
My understanding is that it was called by Constantine. But what makes it an ecumenical council was the approval of the pope. I suppose you could say that in a sense he convoked it because of that, but that's not really the ordinary sense of the word convoked.
Legally convoking any council of bishops is a power residing with the Authority of the Church. As the Emperor Constantine did not have any authority in the Church, he could call **a** meeting/assembly/council of some sort, just as any influential and powerful layman, but he could not make it into any sort of council of the Church (not even provincial) without the approval of ecclesiastical Authority, and he could not make it into an ecumenical (i.e. universal) council without the approval of the Pope, who is the only one who possesses supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Indeed.
I once asked a sedevacantist priest if a 300 year vacancy would challenge his position at all. He said it would not.
Is that your view?
I don't have a ready answer to that question – but in a sense, I guess that means no, what the priest said is not my view. If it was my view I'd have a ready answer.
Judah lacked a reigning king for longer than that, though, and yet the Son of David appeared, was acclaimed as such, and now sits on that throne eternally. Just a thought, not a certain answer.
The other day I published the following, in which a few authorities state that no limit can be given, provided certain other conditions are not met:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/sedevacantism-as-a-pestiferous-heresy