Author Topic: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists  (Read 3776 times)

Wenceslav

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2017, 10:29:08 PM »
Hi Mith,

Thanks for your response. This is part of my thread with Pacelli re:Sacramental Bishops.
I realize the analogy with the SSPX or other Traditional clergy only goes so far since they (i.e. Czechoslovak Bishops) were approved for the Czechoslovak context directly by Pope Pius XII. Archbishop Lefebvre did not have papal approval but then there was no pope when he founded the SSPX :)
***********************************************

Sacramental Bishops” as John alludes to in his second paragraph do have a precedence in the history of the Catholic Church i.e. in former Czechoslovakia. Pope Pius XII gave special faculties to Bishops to ordain men to the episcopate in the early 1950s. These bishops were not attached to any See and were there to ordain other priests and provide sacraments to the faithful.
Please see interview of Bp. Hnilica in “Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II: How Mary Intervened to save Russia” by conservative Catholic author Timothy Tindal-Robertson (pg. 153):
Quote
At that time in the basement I [Bp. Hnilica] swore fidelity to Peter with all my heart. You know that every bishop receives a diocese when he is ordained. I was told [by his ordaining bishop], “Your diocese covers Peking-Moscow-Berlin.” This was not meant geographically but symbolically. I didn’t understand it at the time......
Before escaping, Bp. Hnilica ordained Jan Chrysostom Korec to the episcopate. Bp. Korec was not assigned to any See but fulfilled his episcopal duties by nourishing the faithful with the Sacraments, ordaining other priests and consecrating another canadidate to the episcopal dignity i.e. Dominik Kalata in 1955 - at that time unknown by the Vatican but tacitly approved later. From a recent article from the Vatican press office about Bp. Korec,
Quote
In a letter sent to the “Pope” [JPII] on 25 March 1990, Bishop Korec repeated his total obedience to the successor of Peter, thanked the Pope for the gift of the pectoral cross, recalling his 38 years of faithful mission lived according to the instructions of Pius XII given in 1951……..
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 10:33:21 PM by Wenceslav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, Mysterium Fidei

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 #11 on: October 31, 2017, 10:38:51 PM »
That's very interesting, Wenceslav. 

The funny thing about that time period and place is that we don't know what we don't know, but we know that a lot of secret things happened, or at least that's what one learns being on the forums long enough.  Very cool to see some actual, specific claims.

Without knowing too much about the details of such consecrations, I can't really comment much further, but this certainly does seem to be the potential here to better justify the traditionalist clergy response to the crisis.  Still not a perfect response, but perhaps a bit more rooted in precedent knowing what happened in eastern Europe.

ETA: I'd give you two thumbs up for that, if I could.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav

2Vermont

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2017, 04:50:51 AM »
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.

Although he may not be a "home-aloner" per se, he most certainly has the "home-aloner" mindset wrt the traditional clergy.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

2Vermont

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2017, 05:01:02 AM »
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.

The issue with Pacelli is that despite the fact that he will not come out and say that others *have* to or *should* agree with his views or that another's views are "heresy" (just "heretical"), he most certainly posts as if he has figured everything out and everyone should listen to him.  And quite frankly, except for maybe you, the posters do look to him for all the answers and it seems as if whatever he says is truth, including discrediting traditional clergy.  Thank you for questioning him.   
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav

Rubecorks

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2017, 05:18:24 AM »
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.

This is why I said "type of" home-aloner. He shares the same errors regarding epikeia and supplied jurisdiction.

 

Rubecorks

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2017, 07:54:55 AM »
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. 

I don't agree that that is the very definition. The term sedevacantist is historically connected with Vatican II. Those who reject Francis do it for more emotional reasons that doesn't have a proper principled basis.


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.

Not unprecedented. The Catholic Encyclpedia mentions historically a host of wandering bishops without diocese or title.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

TKGS

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2017, 01:11:36 PM »
The term sedevacantist is historically connected with Vatican II. Those who reject Francis do it for more emotional reasons that doesn't have a proper principled basis.

Indeed.  I would not be surprised if many, if not most, of the people who now claim to be sedevacantist purely as a result of their rejection of Bergoglio will return to the Conciliarists the moment Bergoglio dies and a new "pope" is elected who is a little more conservative and like a few smells and bells. 

Meanwhile, all of the corruptions Bergoglio brought to the Novus Ordo establishment will continue and these people will accept them completely.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

ClemensMaria

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2017, 02:28:46 PM »
The term sedevacantist is historically connected with Vatican II. Those who reject Francis do it for more emotional reasons that doesn't have a proper principled basis.

Indeed.  I would not be surprised if many, if not most, of the people who now claim to be sedevacantist purely as a result of their rejection of Bergoglio will return to the Conciliarists the moment Bergoglio dies and a new "pope" is elected who is a little more conservative and like a few smells and bells. 

Meanwhile, all of the corruptions Bergoglio brought to the Novus Ordo establishment will continue and these people will accept them completely.

Disclaimer: I didn't take the SV position until December 2013.

While my conversion to the sv position wasn't motivated purely by the emotional rejection of Bergoglio, I have to admit that Bergoglio was certainly a major influence on my decision to investigate the sv position.  I agree that there are some who only reject Frank and they will go back to the Conciliar Church as soon as someone a little less odious than him gets elected.  But those people are usually easily identified because they all think Benedict is the still the pope (resignationists).  Maybe I'm wrong about this but I think most people who take the sv position were convinced by the well-reasoned and articulate arguments presented by so many folks who had already taken the position.  Bergoglio may have given us a kick in the butt but he didn't carry us.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mithrandylan, 2Vermont, Nick, Mysterium Fidei

Mysterium Fidei

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2017, 02:36:02 PM »
The term sedevacantist is historically connected with Vatican II. Those who reject Francis do it for more emotional reasons that doesn't have a proper principled basis.

Indeed.  I would not be surprised if many, if not most, of the people who now claim to be sedevacantist purely as a result of their rejection of Bergoglio will return to the Conciliarists the moment Bergoglio dies and a new "pope" is elected who is a little more conservative and like a few smells and bells. 

Meanwhile, all of the corruptions Bergoglio brought to the Novus Ordo establishment will continue and these people will accept them completely.

Exactly! I don't think it would take much either. If they elect someone who doesn't act like a complete buffoon and can keep his mouth shut and not spout blatant heresies off the cuff and at least show a little decorum and comportment and actually act somewhat like a Pope, many, if not most, of the Bergoglio inspired sedevacantists will be back in the Conciliarist fold.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 02:45:51 PM by Mysterium Fidei »
 

2Vermont

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2017, 03:41:53 PM »
The term sedevacantist is historically connected with Vatican II. Those who reject Francis do it for more emotional reasons that doesn't have a proper principled basis.

Indeed.  I would not be surprised if many, if not most, of the people who now claim to be sedevacantist purely as a result of their rejection of Bergoglio will return to the Conciliarists the moment Bergoglio dies and a new "pope" is elected who is a little more conservative and like a few smells and bells. 

Meanwhile, all of the corruptions Bergoglio brought to the Novus Ordo establishment will continue and these people will accept them completely.

Exactly! I don't think it would take much either. If they elect someone who doesn't act like a complete buffoon and can keep his mouth shut and not spout blatant heresies off the cuff and at least show a little decorum and comportment and actually act somewhat like a Pope, many, if not most, of the Bergoglio inspired sedevacantists will be back in the Conciliarist fold.

Yes, a "Benedict XVII" like a Cardinal Burke or a Cardinal Sarah.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)