In all my posts, I've never discussed the form of sedevacantism known as sedeprivationism (the thesis advanced by the late theologian Bp. Guerard Des Lauriers that the "seat is deprived" of a valid pope).
The most vocal and erudite proponent of the thesis is Bishop Donald Sanborn, who wrote a magnificent article about it. I just recently had the good fortune of reading it and was very impressed. As the article is a good ten pages long, I thought I would try to condense it down as concisely as possible and omit the theological jargon where feasible. In this way, I hope my readers will be better acquainted with Sedeprivationism which may very well prove to be the state the Church is in since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.
1. The Roman Catholic Church is Indefectible.
This is a dogma of the Faith taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians. It means that the visible Church will endure until the end of the world, and that, right until the end of time, it will keep Christ's religion incorrupt. (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 3:25).
2. A Heretic Can't Be Pope.
This is the universal teaching of the theologians as well as Pope Paul IV in Cum ex apostolatus. Public heresy automatically severs the heretic from membership in the Church, and if you are not a member of Christ's Mystical Body on earth, you cannot be the visible head of that Church. (See Fr. Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope for a complete explanation and list of citations. Available at www.traditional mass.org)
3. Vatican II and The Post-V2 "Popes" Teach Heresy.
The list here is endless. We could begin with Lumen Gentium claiming that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church, rather than "is identical with," and continue right up to the present with Francis claiming, "There is no Catholic God," and atheists can go to Heaven. Those who wish to "recognize and resist" Frankie as pope, like the Society of St. Pius X, will often say that the pope has "no authority to change" the basic constitution of the Church. They have it backwards. The fact of the change means they had no authority. It was lost through heresy.
4. There Must Be Perpetual Successors To Saint Peter In The Primacy Given By Christ.
This was infallibly defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council. However, it does NOT mean there always has to be someone in the office. Theologians, such as Dorch, have clearly taught that there could be an interregnum of many, many years between popes. Having no pope does not mean we have no papacy.
Up to this point, sedevacantists, who hold that Francis is in no way the pope, agree with the sedeprivationists (hereinafter SP). The only difference between the two positions is how and why Francis is not the pope. Differing with the sedevacantists, SP hold Francis is a material, but not a formal pope. Read on to find out what this means.
5. There Is Such A Thing As Material Succession.
The Greek Orthodox have valid sacraments, which includes valid bishops. However, they do not have formal apostolic succession, only material secession. That is, they occupy the place of bishops(material)but lack all jurisdiction and authority (formal).
They have no legitimate right to the authority of the office of bishop, since they were designated by those who were legally excluded from the Church.
6. Vatican II "Popes" Have Material Succession.
Sedevacantists put the V2 "popes" in the same boat as the Greek Orthodox, they succeed materially and without formal, legitimate designation. SP say they also succeed materially, but they DO have legitimate designation. Both sides agree they lack all authority and jurisdiction and are, therefore, false popes.
7. Power To Designate VS. Power To Rule
Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.
8. De Facto VS. De Jure
Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto.
9. Application To The Vatican II Sect.
The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.
Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.
The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope de jure, not de facto. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.
The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?
There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal pope de facto. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over.
This, in a nutshell, is sedeprivationism. Only time will tell if it's the real solution to the apostate times in which we live.
Also thesis from IMBC for people that can attend mass in Europe or Argentina: http://www.sodalitium.eu/
ReplyDeleteThis thesis came from nowhere and it will go nowhere.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I am dubious about it. (I put it no more strongly.)
In 150 years not only will this thesis have been largely
forgotten but it will be suppressed and any historian
who writes about it will be punished.
I can tell you this without looking.
The thesis came from one of the top pre-Vatican II theologians in Rome. It is based on sound philosophical and theological principles. I'm not claiming that it is true, but it may be proven that it is the solution. I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim a future historian who writes about it "will be punished." Sounds like some dystopia from a novel you read.
DeleteSedeprivationism sounds like a heresy to me.
DeleteVatican Council I
"If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
"So, then,if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
Sedeprivationists would say that the current holders of the papal office only hold that office materially, and therefore are not Roman Pontiffs
DeleteI would request that the author look in to conclavism and Pope Michael. I think of sedeprivationism as another SSPX “recognize and resist” position, distinct from sede vacantism and SSPX. I think of it as in schism with sede vacantists, because the sedeprivationist should be attempting to convert Francis in order to get a true pope, and a sede vacantist would not recognize Francis as a true pope if he did convert. If that "sede vacantist" was willing to recognize Francis as pope if that happened, that person is actually a sedprivationist now rather than a sede vacantist.
ReplyDelete"Only time will tell if this is the real solution...". Yes, but we must hasten to that solution immediately! We don't have time to spare! There were talks within the SSPX about electing a pope, but it didn't happen because they falsely believed that the Vatican 2 nonpopes were popes. No big group came out strongly as a sede vacantist and then proceeded to an election. Even many who think they're sede vacantist, are crypto-sedeprivationists, as this post suggests - they are probably sedeprivationists without knowing it. Because if one is a sede vacantist, why not proceed to an election or recognize a conclave that already occurred? Or, then if you believe no election can ever happen, prove it.
To sum up, there are only 5 possible solutions I see once one has taken the position that John 23rd through Francis are not popes:
1. Sedeprivationism
2. Sede vacantism (no pope can be elected ever again)
3. Recognizing a conclave that has already happened
4. Holding a new conclave
5. Mystical conclave
#1 seems as logical as a woman being partially Catholic or half-pregnant. I believe the novus ordo has nothing to do with Catholicism and thus the Catholic Church is not deprived of a head because of the actions of the novus ordo. #2 seems to be contrary to the dogma that Peter will have perpetual successors. #3 is my current position under pope Michael, as St. Alphonsus said that "even if an election contained fraud it was to be nevertheless held as valid". We have extraordinary times which call for an extraordinary election. We have no cardinals to elect, hence the right to elect falls upon the universal Church. #4 needs to explain why the multiple previous conclaves were invalid, especially Pope Michael’s. By choosing to not participate in an election, various “traditionalists” have decided they did not want to elect the pope, and then to not support the elected would make various “traditionalists” at least materially schismatic as they do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. #5 No miracle was needed for conclaves in the past. Every sede vacante yielded to an election. Some suggest apostolic succession might be broken as well by a “mystical claimant”.
Hence these positions should be weighed logically and a mutual solution should be arrived at. In order for one to remain as one of the positions, the others must be addressed. I have not seen the sede vacantists or sedeprivationists address the conclaves held and “mysticalist conclaves”, yet I do still see sede vacantists call for a miraculous solution. But there was already supposedly a “miracle conclave”, so it should be addressed why this miracle is rejected. There are various problems with experimentally continuing to be a sedeprivationist or sede vacantist, as jurisdiction normally comes from a true pope and sede claims to “supplied jurisdiction” have been called in to question. If there are more possible solutions, they should be listed and logically weighed. Although divisions may be necessary, I am “anti-traditionalist” and pro-Catholic and believe in a future true unity among various divided camps. I believe we can see through the fog by prayer and study and get to the true solution so that the Church may be restored.
At the risk of sounding uncharitable, "Pope" Michael, aka David Bowden, is a seriously disturbed man who was expelled from the SSPX for being unfit. If you watch the documentary about his life filmed by some college students, you would probably laugh if it wasn't so pathetic. He was "elected" by his parents and a couple of neighbors, whom he claims were the only "true Catholics" left in the world.
DeleteYour solutions are also without merit. Sedevacantism does not mean we can never elect a pope again. An imperfect General Council would need to be held. Hence, there is no need of some ertsatz "Conclave."
Sedeprivationism is based on very logical prinviples .
I would urge you and other "traditionalists" to be more charitable and to not make assumptions but to reason out the issues with more detachment.
DeletePope Michael is not seriously disturbed. If he is incorrect, he is merely in error. A sedeprivationist or sede vacantist "priest" ordained under "Bp." Sanborn claimed that one who would even consider Michael as pope is mentally ill. However, the same charge could be brought against sede vacantists - it is really a distraction from the issues and logically arguing them.
Either way about the SSPX, whether Pope Michael left or was dismissed, the SSPX was not a Catholic organization but was in communion with an antipope. Hence it is necessary to leave this. It looks like there was some politics at play in order to dismiss him, and then he didn't try to re-join because the SSPX is not Catholic. See "Why I left the SSPX" - http://popemichael.vaticaninexile.com/Files/Why%20I%20Left%20the%20SSPX.pdf
Pope Michael and his group of Catholics informed the world they were going to hold an election, but only a few showed up. Numbers do not determine the validity of an election. Many "traditionalists" were excommunicated due to being in communion with a Vatican 2 antipope or group, and many just did not end up going. If you believe the SSPX are schismatic as a sede vacantist, hence they would not be called to elect a pope as they are outside the Church. Additionally, what gives the sede vacantists the right to delay electing a pope? The truth is that many are not sede vacantists but sedeprivationists, as I mentioned, and therefore they wait for Francis to convert rather than hold an election or support one.
I am not saying that if one is a sede vacantist that that means one cannot elect a pope ever again. As I outlined above, that is one of the distinct positions that people hold - that no election can be held and they are sede vacantist until the end of the world. If one believes we can elect a pope, one becomes something like #4 and ceases to really be a sede vacantist, but more like a proto-conclavist. The "sede vacantism" you are referring to is not a solution, but the lack of a solution, and the numbers I offered are possible solutions. The "sede vacantist" position you are mentioning is something of an agnosticism that is not committed to #1-#5. But "sede vacantism", as you mention, is not a solution to the crisis, but is only a means to the proper solution of the crisis.
Hence I would urge more study on these issues as they are mutually exclusive and have consequences. I am not aware of many, or any sede vacantists addressing the conclavist issue - which is probably because once they study it they become conclavists.
I hope this was helpful!
I notice that you put quotation marks around the words "traditionalist" (lower case), and "Bp." in reference to Donald Sanborn. This would lead me to believe you call into question the validity of Sanborn's consecration, as well as the legitimacy of the Traditionalist movement. I would like to see your proof for those claims.
DeleteSeems like you've bought into the whole "Pope" Michael idea hook, line, and sinker.
So let's look at David Bawden's claims.
1. "Pope Michael and his group of Catholics informed the world they were going to hold an election, but only a few showed up."
In 1990, I was a 25 year old science teacher in NYC and a Traditionalist for nine years. I never received any "invitation" to a so-called "conclave." Nor did Fr. DePauw, or any of the approximately 100 Traditionalists I knew at the time. In a time before modern computers and the social media, how did he (a) determine exactly who were and were not qualified, and then (b) send them an invitation? Was there a full page ad in the NY Times or Washington Post that I missed?
2."Numbers do not determine the validity of an election." What does determine its validity? Theologians spoke of an imperfect general council with specific rules, but no pre-Vatican 2 theologian ever taught that some Catholic in Kansas can just decide to invite some "real Catholics" to his house next to the barn and whoever shows up constitutes the electors. Moreover, I would like ANY citation from a reputable pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches that women can participate in a conclave. Bawden's mother, neighbor's wife, and one Theresa Benns, who is the "theologian" who engineered the whole concept of a farmhouse conclave. All this makes his "election" a farce.
3. "If you believe the SSPX are schismatic as a sede vacantist, hence they would not be called to elect a pope as they are outside the Church."
I do NOT believe the SSPX are schismatic and outside the Church. They refuse to accept the obvious--we have no pope. They are schismatic in the PRACTICAL order, i.e., if Francis is pope they can not refuse communion with him and decide what they will and will not obey. However, you can't be schismatic in reality if there is no pope to whom you refuse obedience. As long as they are no in actual communion with apostate Rome (they are not) and reject the errors of Francis and Vatican 2 (they do) they are not outside the Church.
4. Bawden has dubious orders. After much investigation, I was able to dig up the name of "Bp" Bob Biarnesen as his ordaining and consecrating prelate. Why would a "bishop" who is in communion with Michael remain such an enigma? Why hasn't he been appointed "cardinal." He allegedly received his orders in the Duarte Costa line which is rife with problems. Like Thuc, Duarte Costa and his lineage conferred orders on unfit candidates. In regards to Archbishop Thuc, any orders deriving from "Pope Gregory XVII" (an illiterate chicken farmer) must be considered null amd void, since he did not possess the minimum theological training to have a presumption of validity in conferring the sacraments. They same can be said of "Bp" Bob. There is no proof he ever was ordained and consecrated, or what his comprises his own theological training (if any). The fact that he is kept in virtual secret by Bawden tells me he's got something to hide.
Delete5. Interestingly, Ms. Benns, to whom you post a link in another comment, is back to being a Home Aloner after denying the validity Michael--the very "conclave" she set up. Her article is prolix. I suggest you have several hours to kill before attempting to read it. After claiming to be an expert at research and writing, she fails to tell us why we should believe her after her vaunted skills set up an antipope, placing his followers outside the Church and leading them to Hell. Since she was a follower of Bawden she publicly placed herself outside the Church. As all Traditionalists (she claims) have dubious orders and no jurisdiction at all, there is no one who can receive her abjuration and grant her absolution, thereby virtually ensuring her damnation.
6. "Additionally, what gives the sede vacantists the right to delay electing a pope?"
How about the lack of all things necessary to do so validly? An imperfect general council is much more complex than inviting your parents and next door neighbors to the farmhouse. Before a new claimant can be recognized, the errors of Vatican 2 must be substantially recognized as non-Catholic. We are seeing that now with those claiming that Ratzinger is still "pope" and even others toying with the idea. Next October, we may see widespread rejection of Frankie, with the his probable permission for adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus cracker ("communion").
7. Pope Michael is not seriously disturbed. If he is incorrect, he is merely in error. A sedeprivationist or sede vacantist "priest" ordained under "Bp." Sanborn claimed that one who would even consider Michael as pope is mentally ill. However, the same charge could be brought against sede vacantists - it is really a distraction from the issues and logically arguing them.
Anyone who thinks mommy and daddy can elect you pope in the farmhouse has issues. (To be charitable). The SSPV, CMRI, and other independents who base their rejection of Vatican II and the current papal claimant on strong theological principles, and have sound seminaries with great theological formation can hardly be said to have mental problems.
8."I am not aware of many, or any sede vacantists addressing the conclavist issue - which is probably because once they study it they become conclavists."
I am a sedevacantist. I have studied conclavism. I'm well-educated (science teacher and lawyer). Now you know one such case! Come to NY, and I'll introduce you to many others like myself!
9. I hope this was helpful!
It helped reinforce my conviction that conclavism is a dead end. It will also help my readers to see likewise. I hope Mr. Bawden gets the help he needs. Charles Manson doesn't think he has problems and he has explanations for why he's sane as well.
I hold the sedevacantist position and would gladly recognize Jorge Bergoglio if he converted and abolished every action since John XXIII.
DeleteI hold the sedevacantist position.However I don't have the authority or power to convince Bergoglio nor do I have authority to elect a true catholic pope.Thus while I would recognize Bergoglio he converted,I hold the sedevacantist position until a true pope reigns.
DeleteAdditionally, Sanborn says he likes the name “material-formal sedevacantism” rather then sedeprivationism.
ReplyDeletehttp://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2009/06/interview-with-bishop-donald-sanborn-on.html
S.H. Was there a more trendy, easier to pronounce, current name?
Bp. S. Material/Formal Sedevacantism is really the correct name for it or let’s see…
S.H. I’ve heard it called “Sedeprivationism.”
One reason why I would not call it this is because I believe that sede vacantism and sedeprivationism are distinct, and Sanborn lumps the two together as though they are the same, perhaps for the practical motive of continuing working with sede vacantists, or otherwise because he believes they are genuinely aligned. But I think this is a category mistake as I have shown.
I suppose to #3 I should add that there was the Siri thesis. However, it was never found out that Siri became pope. He never broke away from the novus ordo and hence has guilt by association or silence that gives consent. Also I've never found evidence that there was a conclave upon his death and so that line would have died out.
ReplyDelete...with the eyes of Faith, cf: http://papalrestoration.com/
DeleteAll we can do is pray for the church to reunited to her former glory pre-1958!
ReplyDeleteHere are some attempted refutations of sedeprivationism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/einsicht12.2003.html
http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/guerardistdifficulties.html
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/articles/bombshell-basis-for-the-material-pope-theory-why-traditionalists-never-left-the-novus-ordo-church/
The Thuc line is valid and anyone in the traditional catholic world' (SSPV CMRI SSPX) received their orders in exact same fashion.Yes he made some dubious decisions but was regretful for them subsequently.Many things changed with his concecration candidates AFTER he had performed the holy orders on them.A priest who lived with him in the 80's in upstate NY has stated he was not 'mentally unfit'.He went on to say the men who state this lie never knew Archbishop Thuc let alone meet him.
ReplyDeleteResponding to your Pope Michael comments above, but it was too large a comment to place in text here, so I posted to a blog: http://p0pemichael.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/response/
ReplyDeleteThank you!
I do not follow or accept 'Pope Michael'.However after watching his YouTube video 'The United States is my Cross',it dawned on me that he makes valid points.Check it our if you have 10 minutes to spare.To his credit,Archbishop Bawden makes himself seem kind,charitable,and humble.He states he sent invitations to every traditional bishop he could find for his conclave.You be the judge of your own conclusion.Check out the video this week.
ReplyDeleteSedeprivationism makes a lot of sense the longer this vacancy goes on.
ReplyDeleteDear Introibo. Do you know when one could get pictures of "Pope Michael's" ordination and consecration? He used to have them on his website. Many thanks and God bless.
ReplyDelete@anon7:39
DeleteNo. As a matter of fact, the whole thing is highly suspicious. Nothing is known of the background regarding “Bp.” Bob Biarnesen. Why wasn’t he made “cardinal” of The Sacred (Pig) Pen-itentiary on the Kansas farm?
Bawden is still a layman as far as I’m concerned.
—-Introibo
Thanks much, Introibo.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo - why would the Greek schismatical bishops be materially bishops?
ReplyDeleteThey're both non-Catholics and legally non-Catholics. They have no power to designate.
Also, how would you respond to this? St. Alphonsus said, “it doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as Pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become true pontiff”. Wouldn't that justify the position that John XXIII was a true pope?
@anon5:59
DeleteThey would be material bishops because they have the true power of Holy Orders and can become “formal” bishops once they convert to the One True Church. So in that restricted sense they have material continuity in Apostolic Succession.
As to Roncalli see my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html?m=1
As to Universal Acceptance see my
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-universal-acceptance-guarantee.html?m=1
—-Introibo
Thanks for the reply. Well then that makes the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and Syrian Catholic Church two-headed monsters when the Eastern Orthodox Antiochene patriarch and Jacobite patriarch convert together, right?
Deletehttps://www.truerestoration.org/interview-with-bishop-donald-sanborn-on-vatican-ii-the-sspx-and-the-motu-proprio/
Here Bp. Sanborn says that when admitting a Russian Orthodox priest, he formally received him according to the rite of reception. But when a Novus Ordite "priest" was admitted, he was not formally received, informal reception is okay because of the formal-material thesis. That's what Bp. Sanborn says.
(Also, I would want to know what you think on this: in the same interview Bp. Sanborn says that it is disputed if a simple Latin-Rite priest can validly confirm. He said that the jurisdiction-sacramental nature is now disputed. What do you think of this?)
@anon10:20
Delete1. The Vatican II sect poses an unprecedented circumstance: people who in good faith thought they were really Catholic. I don't exactly know what Bp. Sanborn's distinction is between formal and informal abjuration of heresy. Formal abjuration must be in the external forum, however by "informal" he might mean it was done simply by a solemn profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath. He would need to supply the sacraments except Baptism as they were invalid unlike the RO priest. I see nothing inherently wrong with it, if that is what he means.
2. In my opinion, latin -Rite Traditionalist priests CAN confirm validly in exigent circumstances. Such delegation of jurisdiction was given by Pope Pius XII and never withdrawn. The only argument against it would seem to be that since Traditionalist Bishops possess no Ordinary Jurisdiction, and the priests are also for sacraments only, then the jurisdiction doesn't apply from Pope Pius XII. I don't buy that because the pope's conferral was not contingent upon the bishops. The legislator (Pope Pius XII)had in mind true Catholic priests, which today would be Traditionalist priests.
---Introibo
Thanks for the reply Introibo. If you read the interview, he meant by "informal" that there was no oath/rite that the person needs to do, he just comes to the seminary, because materially, the pre-Vat II and post-Vat II are the same Church.
DeleteAlso, why would circumstances affect the validity of confirmation? So when some circumstances occur, the priest somehow receives a power reserved to bishops? Wouldn't the priest receive the power to confirm at ordination, and it only becomes licit in some circumstances? Like we can validly baptize, but it only becomes licit in some circumstances? Why would jurisdiction supply grace in confirmation? I though this only works in Penance because you presume jurisdiction over the one you absolve? Or is it because Holy Orders is primarily oriented to the Eucharist?
Do Eastern Orthodox outside the danger of death have valid Penance (they have no jurisdiction, like how the Conciliar Church saw the SSPX before it "granted" faculties)?
Sorry if I sound ignorant. Many thanks and God bless.
@anon11:26
Delete1. He should be made to (at the least) sign the Profession of Faith and Anti-Modernist Oath. Since I don't know the full story, I will not pass my opinion on the subject.
2. I'm sorry for my loose terminology with regard to Confirmation. "Jurisdiction"--properly so-called--- is NOT necessary. The unanimous teaching of the theologians is that no priest can validly confer the Sacrament of Confirmation absent an Apostolic Indult to to do so. Why this is so is a disputed question never settled by the Church. According to theologian Coleman, "The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest, who by Divine Law does not derive the power to be a minister from the order he has received, by by the power of the Roman Pontiff is delegated to administer Confirmation in exceptional circumstances," (See "The Minister of Confirmation," CUA Press, [1941], pg. 104).
This power is neither jurisdiction nor order. The most common explanation is that the priest receives a revocable grant of "episcopal dignity" (not order), that when combined with the priestly character he bears, enables the priest to validly confirm according to the circumstances granted in the Apostolic Indult. (Ibid, pgs. 109-110)
After having re-read "Spiritus Sancti Munera" of Pope Pius XII, which took effect January 1, 1947, the power of the Indult only to three classes of priests, all of which presuppose NORMAL states of affairs in the Church. I now must conclude that Traditionalist priests cannot validly confirm, as it is at least dubious at best.
3. Most theologians teach EO priests can validly absolve their own members. At the Council of Florence, the decree "Laetentur Caeli" effected reunion temporarily. When the EO backed out, jurisdiction was never explicitly revoked and the Church supplies jurisdiction for the sake of their members in good faith. This teaching is not definitive, but open to discussion to the theologians and never settled by the Church.
---Introibo
Thanks Introibo, that was very informative.
DeleteIt was fun reading here, Introibo. But I'm surprised that it's not what I read before.
DeleteHere's a passage from the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia for "Confirmation":
"They [the theologians,] were aware, however, that in the primitive Church simple priests sometimes administered the sacrament. This they accounted for by the fewness of bishops, and they recognized that the validity of such administration (unlike the case of Holy orders) is a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. "The pope holds the fullness of power in the Church, whence he can confer upon certain of the inferior orders things which belong to the higher orders . . . . And out of the fullness of this power the blessed pope Gregory granted that simple priests conferred this sacrament" (Summa Theologiæ III.72.11)."
So it's jurisdiction, I believe. After all, how else can a pope confer the "dignity".
Anyway, the reason why bishops have this "dignity" to confirm is because of their jurisdiction (i.e. them being in the highest ranks of the Church), according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Hence a simple priest can be elevated to a portion of the power of the highest ranks to confirm.
This is just my reasoning, however, Introibo. What do you think?
Quam Oblationem, You must be careful in your sources my friend! The Catholic Encyclopedia is fine for basics, but to dig deep into such matters requires reading from the theological treaties of the approved theologians. The Catholic Encyclopedia is imprecise in its terminology (so was I when I originally answered the query above) Jurisdiction, properly so called, has nothing to do with confirmation. Jurisdiction is only necessary for validity in Penance and Holy Matrimony. THAT an Apostolic Indult is necessary for a priest to validly confirm is beyond doubt. HOW the Indult makes it valid is not settled. Theologian Coleman (cited one my comment above) advances the opinions of the theologians. Two opinions opine that it is a quality inherent in the sarcedotal character. But since the time of Aquinas, and especially under Pope St Pius X, this is untenable because if it is not jurisdiction, nothing can be added to priestly power. Theologian Coleman demonstrates that the majority of Theologians teach that it cannot be jurisdiction because a bishop without jurisdiction can validly confirm, nor can anything be added to orders received other than jurisdiction.
DeleteRather it is a dignity that emanates from the episcopate but not dependent upon it. Just as an inferior officer can make soldiers when deputized by the commander in Chief, so too can the pope deputize a priest to make soldiers for Christ.
—-Introibo
Thanks Introibo. Looks like I'll be really careful when reading from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
DeleteIntroibo, did you accidentally delete my comment in regards to Nestorius here, or did I fail to send it?
I pointed out that Nestorius lost the power to designate when he became a heretic according to Pope St. Celestine I, which I think disproves sedeprivationism.
Hello, Introibo.
ReplyDeletePope St. Celestine I (422-432) in his letter to John of Antioch preserved in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (Vol. 1, cap. 19), says:
“If anyone has been excommunicated or deprived either of episcopal or clerical dignity by bishop Nestorius and his followers since the time that they began to preach those things, it is manifest that he has persevered and continues to persevere in communion with us; nor do we judge him to have been removed, because one who has already shown that he ought himself to be removed [‘se iam præbuerat ipse removendum’] cannot by his own judgement remove another.”
Obviously if positions in the Catholic hierarchy really had both distinct matter and form, then Nestorius, as sedeprivationism teaches, should have been a material bishop (until he was deposed for good), who still has the power to designate, but no longer a formal bishop.
But as Pope St. Celestine I said above, he lost the power to designate at the moment he became a heretic. So he's no longer material nor formal bishop.
Doesn't this disprove sedeprivationism?
(Also it also sounds like the stinky SSPX/Novus Ordite argument: "A heretic ceases to be a member of the soul of the Church, but not the body" which contradicts what Pope Pius XII stated.)
Quam Oblationem,
DeleteThe theory applies ONLY to a material pope and cardinals, not lower ranking clergy. Just because something applies to bishops and priests does not mean it applies to the pope and cardinals.
---Introibo
So the positions of the pope and cardinals are composed of matter and form.
DeleteBut the positions of the patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops do not have distinct matter and form.
That doesn't sound right.
Even Bp. Sanborn says all positions are made of matter and form.
If that's false, how did Bp. DesLaurier judge that only the pope and cardinals have distinct matter and form?
Look at Pope St. Celestine's reasoning. Bergoglio is "one who has already shown that he ought himself to be removed [and hence] cannot by his own judgement remove another."
Quam Oblationem,
DeleteI’m not here to defend or prove sedeprivationism. It is a theory advanced by one approved theologian. Could it be correct? Yes. It might not be. We have no authority to settle the matter. Bp. Sanborn is not a theologian or canonist. Bp. DesLauries, to the best of my knowledge and belief did not write extensively on his theory.
I leave it to my readers to decide for themselves. What we know for certain is that we have no pope to rule.
—-Introibo