Author Topic: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists  (Read 3751 times)

Wenceslav

Hello everyone,

I would certainly appreciate any input from those here on the forum. Trad Cath Boards (Vox et al. ) hold a unique position where they describe the actions (post VII) of Archbishop Lefebvre or any other Traditional group as novel.

I will quote Pacelli’s views from one of his posts regarding the schismatic Palmarians

Quote
What basis is there to argue that Clemente in 1976 (prior to his papal claims) could not have consecrated bishop after bishop?  Traditionalist theology states that necessity trumps the law, and that it is up to the consecrating bishop to decide who gets consecrated as a bishop.  Traditionalist thinking also dismisses the necessity of approved training for clerics, and it falls to the Traditional bishop to decide what training he regards as acceptable. 

Regarding his papal claims, I can't see why too many who identify as traditionalists would have a problem.  Many believe that the traditional bishops can elect, and Clemente had more bishops than all traditional groups combined consecrated in a manner in line with the Traditionalist theology of "necessity knows no law," who accepted his papal claims.  He also stated that God made him Pope, which is another idea accepted by many as a way that a new Pope will come.  There were also alleged miracles to support his claims. 

In short, the recipe that made Palma de Troya can easily be duplicated or at least be made close to it, in Traditional circles.  Once the Apostolicity of mission is ignored, and people believe that apostolic succession is continued by any bishop on his own initiave consecrating other bishops based on a "necessity," then we have a deviation from the constant 2000 year teaching of the Church. 

Read more: http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1240/palmarian-sect-I discussion#ixzz4x73neNXL

He posits
Quote
unless you can provide an approved source to support the idea that a bishop in time of crisis has the right to establish a worldwide hierarchical style organization with a structure including geographical districts and seminaries, then I think you should agree that at a minimum this concept is completely novel. It has no support in Church history, and no direct support in theology or canon law, it only rests upon an argument, that, in the opinion of some, that valid principles, when applied to this idea, support it.

My ideas and the thread in question can be found at URL:
http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1248/liceity-archbishop-lefebvre-actions-after

Thanks for any help in responding to Pacelli, I hope it’s ok with the Mods that I posted this here. I believe it’s an important issue for us all.
 

Callixtus

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2017, 02:32:47 PM »
I think the general idea is that necessity knows no law.  One can point to the wild west Thuc consecrations as the dangers of such a situation, but I don't think that is proof of their unlawfulness.  The consecrations of the Archbishop have been far more fruitful, at least "per capita", with the exception of Bishop Williamson maybe, who heads something of a loose group of bishops at a rate of one per year.

As to this:

Quote
Traditionalist thinking also dismisses the necessity of approved training for clerics, and it falls to the Traditional bishop to decide what training he regards as acceptable. 

I don't understand how this argument has any weight AT ALL.  The Church trained everyone who went on board with Vatican II.  That seems to suggest that while training is important (obviously), there isn't some magical formula that makes canonical training inherently superior to extra-canonical training.  Were that the case, Vatican II WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.  So much for training!  :facepalm:
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, MyrnaM

Wenceslav

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2017, 04:21:45 PM »
Hi Callixtus,

Thank you for your reply, yes that is an interesting point. The basis of Pacelli’s argument, IMO, is that +Lefebvre (or +Thuc, or +Pivarunas etc. ) never had the mission ( given to them by the Church)  to form and ordain priests, establish schools, consecrate further bishops etc. I suppose he doesn’t believe the maxim that “necessity knows no law”.

Again, his arguments are similar to the home-aloners and others from the past like Bill Strojie. However Pacelli et al. is not a home-aloner but promotes attendance of the Eastern rites (where some in the hierarchy may be true bishops with ordinary jurisdiction) with the proviso that the priest is validly ordained etc.

Appreciate your comments, thanks.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 04:31:42 PM by Wenceslav »
 

Rubecorks

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2017, 04:40:34 PM »
He posits
Quote
unless you can provide an approved source to support the idea that a bishop in time of crisis has the right to establish a worldwide hierarchical style organization with a structure including geographical districts and seminaries, then I think you should agree that at a minimum this concept is completely novel. It has no support in Church history, and no direct support in theology or canon law, it only rests upon an argument, that, in the opinion of some, that valid principles, when applied to this idea, support it.

Pacelli is a type of home-aloner. These kind of people don't understand epikeia, nor the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law.  He doesn't even have the current facts rights.

Nobody is establishing a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Any "organizing" done is purely practical as in a corporation, and by voluntary participation. Just as one would choose and place himself voluntarily under a spiritual director. This is not a hierarchy of jurisdiction. 

There sure is precedence. When clergy found themselves involuntarily in mission territory, they continued to provide the Sacraments. There were also historical wandering bishops without diocese or title to one.

 

Wenceslav

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2017, 05:14:40 PM »
Rubecorks said
Quote
There sure is precedence. When clergy found themselves involuntarily in mission territory, they continued to provide the Sacraments. There were also historical wandering bishops without diocese or title to one.

Thanks Rubecork,

But Pacelli would probably reply that such missionaries were originally sent by the proper authority. The latter example, I am not aware of except in a very specific case in Czechoslovakia where sacramental bishops were indeed consecrated with faculties from Pius XII in the early 1950s - some unknown to the Vatican but later tacitly approved.
 

Rubecorks

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2017, 05:34:41 PM »
Rubecorks said
Quote
There sure is precedence. When clergy found themselves involuntarily in mission territory, they continued to provide the Sacraments. There were also historical wandering bishops without diocese or title to one.

Thanks Rubecork,

But Pacelli would probably reply that such missionaries were originally sent by the proper authority. The latter example, I am not aware of except in a very specific case in Czechoslovakia where sacramental bishops were indeed consecrated with faculties from Pius XII in the early 1950s - some unknown to the Vatican but later tacitly approved.

Not when enslaved or shipwrecked, etc.  and find themselves in wild territory with no Catholic clergy.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2017, 06:24:53 PM »
He posits
Quote
unless you can provide an approved source to support the idea that a bishop in time of crisis has the right to establish a worldwide hierarchical style organization with a structure including geographical districts and seminaries, then I think you should agree that at a minimum this concept is completely novel. It has no support in Church history, and no direct support in theology or canon law, it only rests upon an argument, that, in the opinion of some, that valid principles, when applied to this idea, support it.

Pacelli is a type of home-aloner. These kind of people don't understand epikeia, nor the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law.  He doesn't even have the current facts rights.

Nobody is establishing a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Any "organizing" done is purely practical as in a corporation, and by voluntary participation. Just as one would choose and place himself voluntarily under a spiritual director. This is not a hierarchy of jurisdiction. 

There sure is precedence. When clergy found themselves involuntarily in mission territory, they continued to provide the Sacraments. There were also historical wandering bishops without diocese or title to one.

I wouldn't call Pacelli a home aloner. His forum is used basically as a platform to promote the Eastern Catholic Churches as the last place on earth where the Church remains intact: "I have the opinion that until we have a pope again, the eastern rites may be the last place on earth where the Church that remains essentially as it existed prior to crisis exists today, at least in regard to having living successors of the apostles, canonical parishes, authorized priests using pristine liturgies, etc."

Read more: http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/735/where-catholic-church-today-2017#ixzz4x8760JD4

IMO, Pacelli, Voxx, and I'll throw Sbyvl in that group as well, are sedevacantist in name only in that they all go to Eastern rite Churches fully in union with Jorge Bergoglio and his Conciliar religion to receive their sacraments, but yet still claim that the Eastern rites are not in union with Bergoglio and his Modernist sect.

Thus their attitude towards "illegitimate" and "vagrant" traditional clergy.

 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

TKGS

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2017, 07:04:41 PM »
I think Mysterium Fidei is correct.  I had come to the conclusion that Pacelli was a home-aloner, but later came to the conclusion that he believes he is a Latin Rite Catholic who attends the Eastern Rites services and brought Sbvyl with him.  Voxx, on the other hand, seems to have been a Byzantine Catholic from birth.

I don't believe any of them are actually sedevacantists though they claim that label.

 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2017, 07:38:28 PM »
To paraphrase John Daly from "The Impossible Crisis," sedevacantism is not a movement, so it has no activity or goals proper to it.  I believe that quite firmly, and that being the case, I would say that any sedevacantist only is a sedevacantist inasmuch as he is "in name" (only).  Again, as he pointed out, there are sedevacantists who go only to the mass of sedevacantist priests; there are others who go elsewhere, and some who even don't go to mass at all.

Although we've not heard from Sbvyl in quite some time, both Pacelli and Vox are sedevacantists (and Sbvyl was too, last we heard from him), because none of them recognize Jorge Bergoglio (or his predecessors, for that matter) as true popes.  I mean, that's the very definition of a sedevacantist. 

Wenceslav, as to the questions in the OP:

I would agree that the activity is novel, primarily because the consecrated bishops were not consecrated to offices.  The idea of a "purely sacramental" clergy is novel.  I don't see any way around that conclusion.  Even in the case of Ss. Eusebius and Athanasius, their "illicit" consecrations were not for sacramental bishops, they were to actually replace the Arian bishops.  In the case of long interregna, we find once again that consecrations without a mandate are done, but that the men consecrated are always appointed, not just consecrated.  So the traditional clergy are truly unprecedented.

I don't think that it follows as a matter of logic from this that they are illicit in the most insidious way of the word.  I would think of them more as extralegal, rather than illegal.  But even if they're properly illegal, whether or not they can be patronized is still yet another question, and one that I would say (and I know Pacelli agrees) would be answered in the affirmative (that is, even if they're all illegal, suspended, etc., we can still go to them.).
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Nick

Callixtus

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2017, 08:11:50 PM »
Hi Callixtus,

Thank you for your reply, yes that is an interesting point. The basis of Pacelli’s argument, IMO, is that +Lefebvre (or +Thuc, or +Pivarunas etc. ) never had the mission ( given to them by the Church)  to form and ordain priests, establish schools, consecrate further bishops etc. I suppose he doesn’t believe the maxim that “necessity knows no law”.

Again, his arguments are similar to the home-aloners and others from the past like Bill Strojie. However Pacelli et al. is not a home-aloner but promotes attendance of the Eastern rites (where some in the hierarchy may be true bishops with ordinary jurisdiction) with the proviso that the priest is validly ordained etc.

Appreciate your comments, thanks.

OK, I understand.

I think that one has to admit, however, that in dire circumstances, the "letter" of the law is often "violated" to conform to its spirit.  Whether or not St. Athanasius is or (as another poster claims) isn't a precedent for this type of activity, his actions must certainly have violated the letter of the law.  The point is that in these instances, men have to make difficult decisions.  I do know that if not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and others, we would not have clergy to go to.  That seems significant to me!
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Nick, Lynne, annamack