Author Topic: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists  (Read 3383 times)

Semperfidelis

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #240 on: February 09, 2018, 12:09:01 PM »
I have no interest in buying a book to "explain" to me Catholic doctrine.  I will gladly stick to Catholic books actually approved by Catholic Authorities for such a purpose.  If it's that clear, I shouldn't need a random layperson to "explain" it for me, but should find the answer clearly laid out in approved sources.  If it is not evident from them or not in them (as is actually the case), it demonstrates that your theories have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine, but are grounded upon your own private teachings.  No thank you!  I will stick to the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Were there approved Catholic sources that explained what the Church taught in the event of a Great Western Schism...prior to the Great Western Schism?

The Divine institution of the Church does not change nor does her doctrine regardless of the times.  And while crisis and challenges may stimulate further development of her doctrine, it cannot change it.  We do not need a specificly defined application of a doctrine, but we must be founded upon, proceeding from, and in harmony to it.

As a matter of point, it is the adaptation policy which has led to the many of the various problems of our day.  The R and R theology, for example, is one trying to "fit" Catholic teaching into a preconceived notion of how to deal with the present crisis.  This is a foundational problem with many traditionalists knee jerk reactions to the crisis.  Conclusion first, then argument ignoring inconvenient points of doctrine.  If care was taken from the beginning, you have to admit, the mythology which is so common in out day would not have been spread. 

Hence, this argument that the Church has not specifically explained today's challenges is a common excuse to deviate from what she has already taught.  The result is further chaos, and it is not a solution but playing with fire.
 

2Vermont

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #241 on: February 09, 2018, 02:43:27 PM »
I have no interest in buying a book to "explain" to me Catholic doctrine.  I will gladly stick to Catholic books actually approved by Catholic Authorities for such a purpose.  If it's that clear, I shouldn't need a random layperson to "explain" it for me, but should find the answer clearly laid out in approved sources.  If it is not evident from them or not in them (as is actually the case), it demonstrates that your theories have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine, but are grounded upon your own private teachings.  No thank you!  I will stick to the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Were there approved Catholic sources that explained what the Church taught in the event of a Great Western Schism...prior to the Great Western Schism?

The Divine institution of the Church does not change nor does her doctrine regardless of the times.  And while crisis and challenges may stimulate further development of her doctrine, it cannot change it.  We do not need a specificly defined application of a doctrine, but we must be founded upon, proceeding from, and in harmony to it.

As a matter of point, it is the adaptation policy which has led to the many of the various problems of our day.  The R and R theology, for example, is one trying to "fit" Catholic teaching into a preconceived notion of how to deal with the present crisis.  This is a foundational problem with many traditionalists knee jerk reactions to the crisis.  Conclusion first, then argument ignoring inconvenient points of doctrine.  If care was taken from the beginning, you have to admit, the mythology which is so common in out day would not have been spread. 

Hence, this argument that the Church has not specifically explained today's challenges is a common excuse to deviate from what she has already taught.  The result is further chaos, and it is not a solution but playing with fire.

You missed my point.  You are correct.  Doctrine doesn't change to the times.  You stated that since Griff's ideas are not from them or not in them, then they are false. 

If it is not evident from them or not in them (as is actually the case), it demonstrates that your theories have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine, but are grounded upon your own private teachings.

I am questioning what doctrine was applied to resolve the Great Western Schism?  Was there one? And if there was no such doctrine, then who is to say that Griff's ideas can't help resolve this Crisis?

I am still waiting for the doctrine that states that Griff's ideas in this thread are impossible and certainly false.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 02:49:11 PM by 2Vermont »
"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: TKGS, ubipetrus, Francis

ubipetrus

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #242 on: February 10, 2018, 08:11:05 PM »
Your supposition is based upon an assumption total unfounded upon historical facts.  The juridical boundaries of cities were not, both in the east and west, bound by the stone walls which surrounded it.
Neither were the juridical boundaries of the most ancient bishops of the Church.
The Decline of the Ancient World, A H M Jones, pg 237:
"The Roman empire consisted, with a few insignificant exceptions, of cities, that is self-governing communities occupying a territory and almost always possessing an urban centre.  Geographically the empire was a mosaic of city territories.  All Roman citizens, that is all indigenous free inhabitants of the empire, belonged to some city.  Local citizenship went not by residence, or place of birth, but by descent, or in the case of freedmen by their patron's registration.  A man was a citizen of Syracuse or Antioch because his father (or patron) was a Syracusan or Antiochene, and he remained a citizen of Syracuse or Antioch even if he - and his father before him - had established a permanent domicile in Carthage.  At Carthage he was a resident alien (incola), and, while he became subject to obligations to the city of his domicile, the city of his origin always retained its claims upon his services."

Hence as can be seen by the passage, the magisterial authority of a city was clearly defined, not only over inhabitants inside its walls, but likewise over those in its claimed territory.  This notion that people were free floating without being obligated to a clear defined authority, is utterly false.  Hence, even an individual between the cities would know where is allegiance and obligations lied given he would by birth, be under one of the city's clear authority.  The lines of jurisdiction in the Church and the extent of a bishop's office have always therefore been clearly defined.  This notion that people voluntarily and at whim subjected themselves to one bishop or another is utterly false.

A second point to disprove your false assumption can easily be seen when understanding the tax system founded in pre-Christian times.  Taxes varied by region and was appropriated according to the authority one was under.  If whole sections of countryside was not designated, no government could effectually tax its citizenry, on a local, region, or state level.     
You must bear in mind that all of that is a description of the secular arrangement, not the Church's arrangement.  While it is reasonable to suppose that the Church's arrangements may well have mirrored the secular arrangements in some regards, the claim that it had done so slavishly is a claim seriously wanting of proof.  Indeed, if a man was born in (hails from) one city, but has his patron in another city, and now currently resides in a third city, then which city's bishop would be his bishop?  Does he have a choice?  Or if not then what algorithm was he to use in order to determine which one of these possible bishops is his authority?  I feel quite certain that nothing is documented as to how the Church handled this issue in those earliest of times, so we really don't know, but remember too that in those earliest days the Church was quite separate from the State, and not the least bit interested in coordinating their affairs with the State.
Please show me where in ecclesiastical law it designates one's spiritual advisor as his juridical authority!  Add to this that a CMRI priest is the spiritual advisor but mass is attended more regularly at a SGG site due to distance.  Or if all three are essentially the same distance from one's place of residence, what then?  Add to this, that we are not discussing where one voluntarily should present himself, but the question involves you explaining which organization's bishop has juridical authority over the individual regardless of voluntary submission. 
Ordinarily, one's regular parish priest should be one's spiritual advisor and is also he that has ecclesiastical juridical authority over him, as a result of his faculties as his priest.  Now, might one chose a different priest as one's spiritual advisor?  Well, I suppose one could "prefer" on a regular basis some priest other than their own parish priest, some priest from a neighboring parish or nearby religious order for example.  But the default (unless some specific choice is made for elsewhere) is one's parish priest, and if you do choose another, ought not one who does this at least coordinate such a move with their regular pastor?

This is not about which Mass is necessarily the closest (especially where one has several choices realistically available to him), but which priest you have as your regular parish priest.  And if you think this is all about voluntarily presenting yourself, as if having some particular traditional priest as your regular parish priest were merely optional, then that is a serious misreading of what I have said.  As a Catholic with normal access to the Church you have a sacred obligation to belong to some parish as your parish, and its priest as your regular pastor.  Even where some choice may be offered as to whether you belong to this one or that one, the obligation to belong to one of them remains absolute.  Again, if you were a young man seeking to get married, and had found a worthy Catholic bride, which one would you have officiate the wedding?  A refusal to make a choice and stick by it constitutes a refusal to belong to the Church.  Since all traditional clergy perform the same Mass, teach from the same catechisms, and so forth, it really makes little difference which one you choose, for you get the Faith equally from any and each and all of them.  OK, I grant that some (CMRI, SSPV, SGG) will do better at "explaining our current ecclesial situation than others (SSPX, FSSP, ICR), but really, these questions, interesting and worthwhile as they are (hence our discussions of them here) are really not relevant to the immediate state of our soul.  Are we living a virtuous life?  Have we confessed all our sins?  Are we raising and educating our children in the Faith as we ought?  Have we availed ourselves of the various sacramental and other helps our priest stands ever ready to provide towards our growth in grace?  Have we fellow Catholics to associate with, not merely over such media as the internet, but in person, over coffee and doughnuts, and with practical opportunities for fellowship and works of grace (a "parish life," so to speak)?
Authority does not need a subject to voluntary submit given the individual is subject to his Authority regardless of his personal willingness.  You are describing a voluntary Lions club; I am discussion an Authority.
Actually it is you who reduce the Church's authority to the level of a voluntary Lion's club.  Apparently you seem to just go here and there and here and there with no loyalty or spiritual relationship to any of them beyond merely getting a sacrament rather than being taught and blessed by the Church, and then think that's OK.  The only voluntary aspect is that we volunteer to belong to the Church (by presenting ourselves to be baptized and then, once baptized being enrolled in a given parish church), or not (by staying at home or anywhere at all other than the Church).  Salvation itself is voluntary; we are always free to avoid church, avoid God, and face a serious risk of Hell.  Only if some identifiable priest and parish is your regular pastor and your parish do you actively belong to the Church (I say "actively" because anyone validly baptized belongs to the Church in a certain sense, but only "actively" by being rooted in a particular parish with a particular pastor).
A United States judge when sentencing does not ask an U.S. born individual if he is willing to submit to the ruling.
Irrelevant.  A judge sentences based on where the crime was committed.  It wouldn't matter that I came from California, lived in Texas, had a job in Nebraska, and a Patron (of whatever sort that would be) in Missouri, if I am caught stealing a car in New York it is a New York judge who will sentence me.
What you are describing is no authority at all.
This is all the authority (on the practical and pastoral level) that the Catholic Church is physically capable of today, and you would deny it even that much.
Please show me were it would be morally wrong for an individual to have multiple spiritual directors.  Again, this is all irrelevant anyway, for if a bishop has authority, we should be able to clearly show who his subjects are and the extent of his authority, not based upon voluntarism, but the subjects obligation to him. 
You (and everyone) are obliged to belong to some one particular priest and parish, though of course you are free to visit elsewhere, to fulfill your Sunday obligation anywhere, even to confess your sins anywhere (provided good reason exists for it, which is common and easy enough).  This is not voluntary (apart from membership in the Church and salvation itself being voluntary) but required.
Your whole description of what the criteria for a Catholic cleric to have ordinary jurisdiction verses supplied jurisdiction is based upon your subjective standards.  Your only reasoning why the many, many bishops whose lineage originated from Old Catholics, Eastern Schismatics (they themselves where ordained and consecrated even from a bishop claiming to hold the "traditional" Catholic Faith), is they did not have proper training?  Who gets to decide what constitutes proper training?
This is not a matter of "training" (who of us ordinary laity would even be in a position to judge the quality of a cleric's training, anyway?) but about one's apostolicity.  The Eastern schismatics may well be quite excellently trained, but they have broken with the Church (back in 1054).  That is not subjective but objective, yet you treat is as though it really were a subjective matter of how "trained" some cleric might be, irrespective of whether he and his bishop is united to the Church or having broken from the Church.  The Old Catholics are the same in that they too also broke from the Church.  This is all a matter of historical record.  But the traditional bishops NEVER broke with the Church.  This too is a matter of historical record.  Indeed today, traditional Catholic bishops are the only bishops alive today who have NOT broken with the Church, for to fail to be traditional is to fail to be Catholic, so all the rest, all those promulgating and imposing the Novus Ordo religion, irrespective of any interior dispositions which God alone can judge, are in precisely the same state as the Eastern schismatics and Old Catholics.
Is it the Faith of the ordaining bishop or the origin of his orders which determines whether the ordaining bishop "confers" jurisdiction?  Do you get to decide?  How many people are necessary to designate he has a legitimate amount to be call a flock and justify his consecration?  Who decides?  You?  Bishop Pivarunas?  Bishop Kelley?  Bishop Sandborn?  What if one thinks there is a reason and the others do not?  Who decides? 
These are objective criteria, solidly based on standard Church teachings.  Either there is a break from one bishop to the next, e.g. a bishop who denounces his consecrator(s) and their religion, or deceives his consecrator, or else there is no break and full Apostolicity is conveyed.  Palmar de Troya consecrands deceived Abp. Thục into believing that they were Catholics when in fact they were Mystics who put the "revelations" of their Mystic(s) ahead of established Magisterial teachings of the Church.  Bp. Webster concealed from Bp. Slupski the fact that he was a Feeneyite.  Bp. Beddingfelt, after serving creditably as such for some years, subsequently defected to a blatantly heretical and bogus papal claimant in Canada.  These breaks are all openly documented facts, not subject to anyone's personal interpretation.  But so many others including our familiar bishops and all bishops leading up to them in their successions have not done any of these violations, and as such retain full apostolicity.
I have no interest in buying a book to "explain" to me Catholic doctrine.  I will gladly stick to Catholic books actually approved by Catholic Authorities for such a purpose.  If it's that clear, I shouldn't need a random layperson to "explain" it for me, but should find the answer clearly laid out in approved sources.  If it is not evident from them or not in them (as is actually the case), it demonstrates that your theories have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine, but are grounded upon your own private teachings.  No thank you!  I will stick to the teaching of Holy Mother Church.
If you are actually serious about having "the answer clearly laid out in approved sources" that's what Sede Vacante! (especially Part One) is all about.  Everything I have claimed is amply supported in the standard sources of Catholic doctrine, as carefully documented therein in excruciating detail.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 08:18:11 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #243 on: February 11, 2018, 07:07:14 AM »
There is considerable evidence that ecclesiastical territories matched the secular boundaries of territories.

First, the identification of the bishop by secular city name in the first place demonstrates the Church's adoption of the secular boundaries to her own use.  And as cited above a city included the surrounding territory.  This understanding of the use of the title of a city to distinguish together both the town and surrounding territory is a historical fact which anyone familiar to ancient history would be aware of.  Follow this with the fact that diocese which became the Ecclesiastical term noting a bishop's area of jurisdiction means specifically this.  It is incumbent on you therefore, as you attempt to depart from the Church's structure and practices, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case.  Everytime one reads from the historical record, bishop of ..., it adds as support to my argument and the insurmountable weight of this being the case is damning against yours.  This is why you are limited to conjecture and NEVER cite anything as fact.  You want it to have been this way therefore in your mind it is.  Facts, citations, actual proof... not necessary when one is infatuated with his own idea.

 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav

ubipetrus

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #244 on: February 12, 2018, 03:26:41 PM »
There is considerable evidence that ecclesiastical territories matched the secular boundaries of territories.

First, the identification of the bishop by secular city name in the first place demonstrates the Church's adoption of the secular boundaries to her own use.  And as cited above a city included the surrounding territory.  This understanding of the use of the title of a city to distinguish together both the town and surrounding territory is a historical fact which anyone familiar to ancient history would be aware of.  Follow this with the fact that diocese which became the Ecclesiastical term noting a bishop's area of jurisdiction means specifically this.  It is incumbent on you therefore, as you attempt to depart from the Church's structure and practices, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case.  Everytime one reads from the historical record, bishop of ..., it adds as support to my argument and the insurmountable weight of this being the case is damning against yours.  This is why you are limited to conjecture and NEVER cite anything as fact.  You want it to have been this way therefore in your mind it is.  Facts, citations, actual proof... not necessary when one is infatuated with his own idea.
None of that follows.  There is a difference between being "the Bishop of Sacramento" with Sacramento being the leading city of California versus being "the Bishop of California," a very specific territory; the first would not preclude another bishop being set up as (for example) "the Bishop of Los Angeles" whereas the second would.

And bishops set up in cities to be near as many of the faithful as possible.  Catholics formed a more or less uniform percentage of the general population equally in town or country, so of course where there are more people there would also be more Catholics.  They may also have preferred cities with a civil ruling authority (king or other lesser secular official) with the hope of converting said civil ruler to the Faith (as indeed happened on many occasions in the ancient world), or at least being able to negotiate peace for the Church within said ruler's domain of authority.  But most importantly there is nothing in divine revelation which requires a 1-to-1 mapping between secular regions and ecclesiastical regions, or else no secular region could ever be divided into two or more ecclesiastical regions, nor could any single bishop ever be set over multiple secular regions no matter how small.

All of that manner of subdivision is what the Church has done as a matter of convenience (for good order) and not as though some other manner of divvying up the Faithful among bishops might not be at least theoretically possible.

And you still haven't answered the question, if I were born in Carthage with parents and much family still there, which has its bishop (Bp. X), have a patron on Thessalonica, which also has its own bishop (Bp. Y), and now currently reside  in Tyre where alone I have been able to find employment for a person of my skills, which also has its own bishop (Bp. Z), who is my bishop?  X, Y, or Z?
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

TKGS

Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #245 on: February 12, 2018, 05:58:45 PM »
...which also has its own bishop (Bp. Z)...

Oh No!!!  Not Bishop Zuhlsdorf!   :lol:
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 46 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #246 on: February 13, 2018, 03:32:11 AM »
And you still haven't answered the question, if I were born in Carthage with parents and much family still there, which has its bishop (Bp. X), have a patron on Thessalonica, which also has its own bishop (Bp. Y), and now currently reside  in Tyre where alone I have been able to find employment for a person of my skills, which also has its own bishop (Bp. Z), who is my bishop?  X, Y, or Z?

If you lived in Tyre you'd be under the jurisdiction of the (rather gluttonous) Bp. Zuhlsdorf.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 46 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Help with a topic concerning the Liceity of Actions by Traditionalists
« Reply #247 on: February 16, 2018, 11:29:55 AM »
Although unlike Griff I don't believe that such a thing has actually happened yet, I see no valid reason why (if we take the false sede perspective for granted) sedes shouldn't organize themselves into churches with priests in a given area establishing liturgical communion with a particular man as their bishop and the faithful recognizing said bishop's jurisdiction over them.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani