1. Jurisdiction And Continuity. Concerning bishops and elections.
2. Proposed Continuity (of the Vatican Council 1869-70). Not nearly finished.
3. “The Second Vatican” As Opposed To “Vatican II”. Suggested canonical term.
A Discussion On Unam Sanctam, Consensus, And Jurisdiction
This discussion took place in the comments section of Novus Ordo Watch beginning Aug.15 here: https://novusordowatch.org/2026/08/leo14-anglican-worship-fire-damaged-church/. It is too long to put in the general comments section so it is here. In this we attempt to balance the rigors of canonicity with intuitive philosophical principles. Not all the answers are in the books.
*Appended Aug.19
Suzanne: (Aug.15)
Very simple argument CONTRA Supplied Jurisdiction:
After the shipwreck of Vatican II, full spectrum ecclesiastical authority was intact because it belongs to the indefectible Divine Principle of the Church. It does not belong to the human principle, which merely participates it. Ecclesiastical authority, as being of Divine Origin, is immutable and cannot be reduced, divided, or decomposed, either in reality or as a speculative abstraction for the purpose of demonstrating the conclusion of an argument.
All arguments - either analogical or from authority - that affirm that our Bishops DO NOT POSSESS complete authority to rule, govern, sanctify AND ELECT A POPE, are, de facto, invalid and unintelligible, as attempting to make use of one or another false analogue, either explicitly or implicitly.
Suzanne: (Aug.15)
It follows from this argument that the re-establishment of territorial bishops is LONG OVERDUE.
Every sedevacantist agrees that the crisis is unprecedented and was never foreseen.
Likewise that the artificial and engineered scarcity of Bishops around the world - justified by the false paradigm of supplied jurisdiction - is an attack against the Divine Principle and Pontiff of the Roman Church, the Paraclete. Contraception of the Church is a mortal sin.
Pascendi: (Aug.17)
That the See of Peter remains until the end of time is the Universal principle because it was Divinely established and decreed. Likewise the characteristics that the occupant must possess were Divinely established and are therefore Universal principles.
The method by which a Pope is elected is derived from ecclesiastical law and must therefore conform to the conditions under which it was established. If the conditions cease to exist then the law no longer applies.
If as some propose, the principle of Ecclesia Supplet can be applied to to the apostate Cardinals so that they can keep the authority to elect a Pope, then so can Supplied Jurisdiction be applied to the Bishops who have remained faithful Catholics, meaning that the authority to elect a Pope can be supplied to them instead.
If the principle of Epikeia is considered, it would favor the faithful Bishops and not the faithless and doubtful Cardinals. If a true Pope had foreseen this crisis would he have declared that should it ever happen then the apostate Cardinals will be left with the authority to elect a true Vicar of Christ, or would he have been more likely to declare that they are stripped of authority and that the authority to elect a true Pope should be transferred to (or remain with) faithful Catholic clergy?
Suzanne: (Aug 17)
I can see from your reply that you are well versed in the subject. Thanks much for that explication. I am right now heading into the Summa Supp. questions about the keys. I want to understand more about the relationship between the key of order and the key of jurisdiction.
The most important fact about all of this is that what happened was absolutely unprecedented. More and more I believe that the Church became fat and gross, hyper-institutionalized, and very legalistic. If you were to consider the Church from the standpoint of Her matter/form composite, then it is almost as if Her form, the Divine principle, lost its external visible manifestations, while the material principle, the human element, not only predominated in characterizing the externals, but lost more and more its supernatural virtue. Wherefore God whacked the Church, fully intending to send the entire juridical structure to the bottom of the ocean. It was the will of God to raze the Church to the ground.
I wonder about what God intends for the future of the Church. I strongly suspect the College of Cardinals will never be reconstituted; nor will the Holy Ghost allow the Church to become so institutionalized again.
As for getting a Pope on the Chair of St. Peter, the biggest obstacle, in my opinion, is the over-reliance on past juridical discipline. The system that was in place is gone. It has been obliterated. There is nothing that prior ecclesiastical law can be applied to now. But the clergy will not let go of trying to force the square peg of our current situation into the round whole of a body of law that is virtually extinct because the entire system is offline.
The difficult and thorny question for me is how to understand the authority of the Church as it exists now. We know that it cannot be divided or impeded or mutated or decomposed into parts on the Divine side; nor can the human side be severed from participating it; for in each of those cases the Church will have defected.
It is my ever strengthening belief that juridicism is not equipped to formulate the new reality as a logical construct. It will be the job of Philosophy and Theology to bring forth the correct definitions. Juridicism's days are numbered.
cairsahr_stjoseph: (Aug.18)
Never thought of it in those terms - very interesting. If the Church had become over-institutionalized with a deadening of fervor as a consequence, then we must assume God foresaw it and had a use for that state of affairs, even as the devil thought to use the institution itself (at least the 'mechanical, legalistic' aspect) against the Church. He tried to use the papacy against the Church but the papacy was taken out of the way (2 Thess. 2:6-7); now since people weren't willing enough to believe in Christ and at least not be too lukewarm about the things of the faith (for Catholics, fervor and firmness; for the rest of the world, to at least consider the truth of Christ), then will people at least believe the truth in principle, holding it above self-interest (or the false god, equality), and will they refuse to treat with the antichrist (Apoc.13:8, 17:8) ?
If people are willing to put a high value on truth in principle then they may see the antipopes as such and may disbelieve the one of whom they are the precursors.
That is why the world is turned upside down; the devil is training everyone in lies and logical fallacies. "That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity" (2 Thess. 2:11).
Pascendi: (Aug.18)
If by saying that the Church became very legalistic you mean that prior to Vatican II, Catholics including the hierarchy had become mechanical in their faith by merely fulfilling their legal obligations then I would agree with you. I don’t think ecclesiastical laws caused this however. Rather weakness of faith and a relaxation of moral behavior caused them to become legalistic in the practice of the faith.
Joan of Arc said that the reason France was made to suffer the Hundred Years War was because the French people had become immoral. Note that they hadn’t lost their faith, but that their behavior had become immoral. Prior to the French Revolution ever increasing numbers of French people had lost both faith and morals. Both of these failings spread throughout the world among Catholics in the decades before Vatican II.
cairsahr_stjoseph: (Aug.15)
It doesn’t seem right that no one can licitly confer the sacraments or celebrate Mass if there were no ‘supplied jurisdiction’ inherent in the Holy Orders and derived from the bishops derived from Pius XII. In that case, the adversary would not have to ban the Mass, as none could be said licitly. That would be the worst case scenario - as least regarding juridiction.
Others have gone over this issue sufficiently enough for me. However, perhaps this can be discussed at the coming meeting, if it happens, together with the 1958 consensus that it is to be hoped they reached.
Suzanne: (Aug.15)
Thanks for your reply. Are you saying that you believe a) in supplied jurisdiction, and b) that it does not transcend the authority of a pope? In other words, do you believe that ecclesiastical authority inheres in the human principle of the Church, rather than the Divine?
What meeting are you speaking about?
cairsahr_stjoseph: (Aug.15)
The jurisdiction I speak of remains with the hierarchy during an interregnum from the previous Pope. It is then derived from those bishops to those new ones they consecrate. Delegated due to the interregnum. I think that is its continuity. At least it appears to be the only solution to the problem at this point, unless I missed something, which is entirely possible.
The meeting I speak of has to do with “Unam Sanctam” which may lead to an “Imperfect General Council”. Personally I would argue against trying for an election at this time but not for meeting to come to a consensus on the essential things. [Edit: At this time your author had the impression that there might be a meeting which is NOT the 'imperfect general council'; and that if there were an official IGC, it might be then that a papal election might be made.]
Suzanne: (Aug.15)
Okay, best I can tell is that your argument is a juridical one based upon citations from authority. Is that correct? Or is it based upon more universal principles?
When is the unamsanctam meeting to take place? And how do you know about it? Was it publicly announced?
cairsahr_stjoseph: (Aug. 15)
It's both citations and universal principles. I've seen citations from authority go either way; but the principle of the thing is the interpretation of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Rather than argue technicalities which can go either way I prefer to step back and see the big picture. The situation is without precedent; so precedent is not a guide (that's one principle). Secondly the things that are of Heaven do not pass away; not without reason. The bishops of Pius XII are fulfilling their mission by consecrating their successors; and their mission is conferred as well with them (however it may be put in canonical terms). Given there is no pope to confirm them, for the good of the Church, what needs to be delegated is thus delegated, until a pope is elected and confirms/ratifies them. I am not great at quoting chapter and verse offhand without first looking for them but it seems to me that when it is all added up and taken into account the answer ought to be along those lines. The details can be hammered out in time.
There are also things in Scripture (Thessalonians, Apocalypse) concerning these times which are also accounted; and since the current situation is without precedent perhaps it is high time the unprecedented step is taken to properly applying the relevant verses.
To go on a tangent, I see part of the problem is not only the lack of proper authority (due to the lack of a Pope), but everyone making a point of everyone else's lack of authority; and this is taken as sufficient reason to disprove each other. So for now there ought not to be an attempt at an election, because it might result in another Great Western Schism without first forming a consensus. The Unam Sanctam venture is good for helping to bring such a consensus about, unless, or perhaps even if, far too many decline to participate, grumbling about 'lack of authority' as though the invitation were an order, and remaining stubbornly in their own little fiefdoms in the wilderness of the world.
Anyway I learned about the Unam venture on Twitter. Not sure what the status is at present, but I'll probably not miss developments as though living under a rock. It was 'publicly announced', at least as far as that goes on their website, Twitter / X, and whatever connections which isn't the media. I'm not connected with it.
Suzanne: (Aug.17)
Fully agree that precedent is not a guide - but we have an army of clergyman who will not stop trying to force precedent upon the Church. This is destroying Her ability to re-extend Herself and fructify.
Interesting what you say about the things of Heaven not passing away. I believe that whatever was salvaged out of the shipwreck is intended by God to be used to rebuild; and whatever is gone is meant by God to be gone forever, at least in the material condition it was in at the time of the destruction event.
Too many traditionalists' minds run along the track of trying to make the Church back into what it was in the fifties; and if they cannot make that happen, they give up, refusing to explore options.
Grace builds upon nature. If the nature is not there, neither is the grace. Same with the visible structure of the Church as She has emerged from the wreckage. If God has allowed some things to be utterly destroyed and not salvageable - such as the juridical system that was in place - then we cannot build back as if it were still functioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment
--