Gabriel

@austinemarie777 @kennhistoria @FrRamolla @FrDesposito One thing is continuing to the means of sanctification and establishing the means for it (seminaries), another thing is the actual governing of the Church and of course the power of designation which the latter is the status questionis.

Thank you for the response and candour. 1. The good @FrDesposito justifies the legitimacy of the administration of the sacraments by traditional Catholic clergy as if that were all they did. Traditional Catholic clergy do way more than administer the sacraments. They carry out many of those acts of external government that normally required jurisdiction, such as preaching, taking full charge of the care of souls in territories, establishing seminaries, religious congregations, chapels and oratories. The good @FrDesposito does not address what justifies this. 2. Epikeia does not grant jurisdiction. It loosens from obligations and permits the benign interpretation of the law giver's will. It cannot be solely appealed to in order to justify all the actions of traditional Catholic clergy. There must be supply of jurisdiction involved, otherwise traditional Catholic clergy act illegitimately in many ways. 3. The good @FrDesposito concedes that jurisdiction is supplied for the administration of the sacraments, in the internal forum. He does not state what the source of this jurisdiction is during this extended vacancy of the Apostolic See. The source cannot be anything other than the Church, that is, the pope. He also does not state what restricts the supply of jurisdiction to the internal forum alone during the administration of the sacraments, since traditional Catholic clergy also act in the external forum, and: - Canon 209 explicitly states that jurisdiction can be supplied for both the internal and external forum; and - Fr Sigismumd Miaskiewicz assures us that "there is no jurisdiction the Church [that is, the pope] will not supply" in his scholarly doctoral dissertation in Canon Law on "Supplied Jurisdiction." In another article, @FrDesposito explains that traditional Catholic clergy cannot exercise jurisdiction in the external forum because they do not have any title, whether legitimate or coloured. In this, he manifestly errs by following an opinion held prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law which debate was definitively settled by the Code. Post Code Canon Law commentators confirm this, including Fr Miaskiewicz in his doctoral dissertation. Consequently, the oft repeated statement that "traditional Catholic clergy have absolutely no claim to any sort of ordinary or habitual jurisdiction" is contrary to observable facts, and the principles of ecclesiastical law on the subject. As gravely erroneous as it is, the idea that traditional Catholic clergy lack jurisdiction is unfortunately now the foundational principle underlying the rejection by a group of very intelligent and pious clergy of the competence of all traditional Catholic clergy to constitute an Imperfect General Council to begin the resolution of the crisis in the Church. God help us all. Amen.

There is little doubt that the Catholic Church is in a crisis. The last major ecclesiastical crisis was the Great Western Schism from 1378–1417. But it was resolved through the institution of a Marian feast. This feast could be the key to solving our modern crisis.

@kennhistoria Then I suppose we agree to disagree. You fail to prove that our bishops could indeed receive the power to designate, and saying it falls to the universal Church does not answer the question.

@ArchAngelGabe76 No, you keep saying “they don’t have the power of designation” over and over again. I’m saying the designation would fall to the universal church. Among those in the universal church, it would be fitting for the Titular Bishops who receive jurisdiction to lead the IGC.

@austinemarie777 @kennhistoria @FrRamolla Unfortunately I cannot write an equally long response, but here’s a short summary in an article: mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/upl…

You wrote: "trad clergy have absolutely no claim to any sort of ordinary or habitual jurisdiction." RESPONSE: Okay, looking forward to your brilliant "sed contra" in response to this argument. The jurisdiction the pope or residential bishops grant to priests and bishops is specifically in order to make them legitimately: - hear confessions - give sermons - establish oratories and churches and care for the flock who will come to them - establish and administer seminaries - establish and administer religious and pious societies of the faithful - assign priests and bishops for the care of the faithful - decide on the nullity of contracted marriages - decide on the validity of administered sacraments - and so on. Every single act above requires jurisdiction specifically committed in a determined manner to a cleric or prelate in order to be legitimately performed. But ALL traditional Catholic clergy FREELY perform these acts, IN FACT. Contra factum, non est argumentum. Ergo. They either perform these acts of jurisdiction legitimately or not. But they have to perform them legitimately since they alone remain to teach, rule, and sanctify the faithful, else the divine mission must be considered to have ceased. Traditional Catholic clergy either perform these acts because jurisdiction is no longer required for them, or because they have obtained the jurisdiction to perform those acts. Jurisdiction is definitely required for the performance of those acts. Therefore, traditional Catholic clergy must have obtained the jurisdiction to perform those acts. But who committed to them this jurisdiction? The last pope EXPLICITLY WILLED by his provision in Canon 20 of the Code of Canon Law, that where he had not made specific provisions for any case, like the grant of jurisdiction during the simultaneous vacancy of all episcopal sees, the rule TO BE APPLIED is to be OBTAINED FROM the principles of law and from provisions of the Code in similar situations. And there are several similar situations where the supreme legislator has EXPLICITLY granted that jurisdiction be automatically obtained IN NECESSITY, without EXPLICIT commission or even recourse to a competent superior. Therefore, applying the explicit provision of Canon 20 and the canonical precedence of cases where jurisdiction is automatically obtained without recourse to any competent superior, there is no doubt that in the the most grave necessity of our day, the jurisdiction necessary to continue the divine mission of the Church has been, at least, implicitly delegated in the truly habitual manner traditional Catholic clergy exercise it.

@kennhistoria I addressed that in the second part of my comment.

@ArchAngelGabe76 Okay, so it would be logical for the universal church gathered at an IGC to have these men serve as its leaders since they are a part of the universal church and they actually receive jurisdiction. You and I (and our postman) do not.

@kennhistoria If you’d like to go right ahead. But on this thread the thesis is not the status questionis, so I’d like to not lose track of the discussion.

@ArchAngelGabe76 It’s what the Thesis holds. I have had multiple laity and some clergy tell me that Prevost and Bergoglio before him are members of the Church. I can DM you their names and share the threads with you. you can ask them yourself.

@kennhistoria Every baptized Catholic is a member of the Universal Church, that much is obvious. They receive sacramental jurisdiction per modum actus, not habitual in any way and that does not include the power of designation.

@ArchAngelGabe76 Are they a part of the universal Church? And do they receive jurisdiction?

@kennhistoria Regardless, the status questionis is whether or not trad clergy have the power to designate. Not the thesis.

@ArchAngelGabe76 Right. It’s the Catholic Church. That’s why you say that the IGC would form a sect. Only the Church can elect a Pope, and you think the Church is the NO and it’s valid Cardinals.

@austinemarie777 @kennhistoria @FrRamolla All that is of course true, but in most places dioceses already exist so in a sense it’s a moot point. Secondly, trad clergy have absolutely no claim to any sort of ordinary or habitual jurisdiction, therefore they could not be the beginning of a juridical act of the Church.

Thanks for engaging. You are correct that the senior priest in Canon 309 §4 is one who has already presented his dimissorial letter to the local ordinary. However, that's irrelevant to the point being made. The point made is that Canon Law has an explicit case where a local ordinary can be constituted WITHOUT any designation or confirmation. The possession and presentation itself of a dimissorial letter from one's superior does not cause the grant of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction obtained by the missionary is either that delegated by the local ordinary, or obtained automatically by law in case of necessity. Now, it can be legitimately argued that traditional Catholic clergy do not have these dimissorial letters, and so Canon 309 §4 cannot operate for them. The response is simple: 1. Dimissorial letters are a juridical requirement which can be dispensed with by the principle of epikeia, especially as the jurisdiction is not obtained by the presentation of the letters themselves. 2. Ecclesiastical law explicitly grants Archbishops and Apostolic Vicars the right to designate pastors outside their territories of jurisdiction in certain cases of necessity, like we have today. Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre did not exercise powers they didn't have in literally dimitting priests to various missions. Traditional Catholic clergy have been originally dimitted by competent prelates, and are in turn competent to dimit new clergy. You are correct that dioceses have been canonically established in many places. But in most cases, these have been previous canonically erected mission territories elevated to dioceses. Just as the priest is still truly a deacon with the powers of the deacon and able to function as a deacon when necessity demands, dioceses elevated from mission territory status are still mission territories and able to be administered as such when necessity demands. A historical precedent for such necessity: the dioceses of England devolved to mission territories after the Anglican Reformation, and were administered as such with Apostolic Vicars and missionaries, until re-established as dioceses when the territories were mature again to be administered as dioceses. Looking forward to your feedback.

@kennhistoria Titular bishops have an apostolic mandate, our bishops do not. They are Catholics, of course, that doesn’t automatically mean they have the power to designate.

@ArchAngelGabe76 You dont need a papal invitation: by definition imperfect councils imply either a doubtful or non-existent pope. In the absence of cardinals or the clergy of Rome, it devolves to the universal church. Are titular bishops in the universal church? And do they receive jurisdiction?

@kennhistoria The thesis argues that the Novus ordites have a claim to title, a simple designation, nothing more. They are non Catholic de facto, not de jure. That’s all it says.

@ArchAngelGabe76 The Thesis argues that the NO is the Catholic Church. The NO religion is false. But it’s the same Church. And the hierarchy are all members of the Church.

@kennhistoria Where is the pope to invite non jurisdictional bishops? That’s where the problem lies. This council would be called by bishops with no jurisdiction, this is not a simple invitation for them to join.

@ArchAngelGabe76 IGC would devolve to the universal church. Titular Bishops are in the universal church, and they can participate in an ecumenical council with an invitation. Plus, the clergy receive jurisdiction. All that to say: who else?

@kennhistoria You propose it be done by people who do not have as much as a colored title, that is the objection, not the IGC. And tell me why I could be attending mass at a traditional chapel if I think the NO is the Catholic Church? That doesn’t make sense.

@ArchAngelGabe76 Which, is what we propose. But you think we have valid cardinals and that the NO is the Catholic Church

@kennhistoria Correct, as it happened during the Great Western Schism.

@ArchAngelGabe76 And if there are no cardinals, Christ would provide jurisdiction to the Universal Church at an imperfect general council.

@kennhistoria And the power of designation remains in the cardinals

@ArchAngelGabe76 Okay, so this seems to be saying jurisdiction does not cease. Its just not grounded in the living pontiff (since there isn’t one). It’s formally with Christ until there is a new visible head.

@kennhistoria It does die, on the contrary, with regard to the actual exercise of jurisdiction. For, the Pope having died, the Church is vacated and is deprived of the exercise of such power.” I misremembered the quote, but here it is.

@kennhistoria “The power of the Church… does not perish with regard to jurisdiction, which is something formal in the papacy, when the pope dies, but it remains in Christ…

@kennhistoria mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/upl…

@ArchAngelGabe76 Source for that? Weirdly enough if that were true it would actually help the argument for an imperfect general council (ordinary jurisdiction wouldn’t exist anywhere, not titles needed)