Posted on 02/19/2026 5:54:57 PM PST by ebb tide
The Society defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church's constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction.
The Constitution Lumen gentium on the Church states in chapter III, no. 21, that the power of jurisdiction is conferred by episcopal consecration simultaneously with the power of order. The Decree Christus Dominus on the pastoral charge of bishops affirms the same in its Preface, no. 3. And this affirmation is reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, c. 375 § 2. In the Church, the reception of the episcopal power of jurisdiction depends by divine right on the will of the Pope, and schism is precisely defined as the act of one who assumes jurisdiction independently and without regard for the Pope’s will. Therefore, according to these documents, an episcopal consecration carried out against the Pope’s will would necessarily be an act of schism.
This argument, which would conclude that the upcoming episcopal consecrations within the Society would be schismatic, rests entirely on the premise of the Second Vatican Council that episcopal consecration confers both the power of order and the power of jurisdiction.
However, according to pastors and theologians whose authority was recognised at the time of the Second Vatican Council, this premise is not traditional and lacks any solid foundation. At the Council, Cardinal Browne and Bishop Luigi Carli demonstrated this in their written remarks on the draft of the future Constitution Lumen gentium. Bishop Dino Staffa likewise affirmed it, relying on the most firmly established data from Tradition.
Pius XII stated three times—in Mystici Corporis (1943), in Ad Sinarum gentem (1954), and in Ad apostolorum principis (1958)—that the ordinary episcopal power of governance enjoyed by bishops, and exercised under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, is communicated to them immediately—i.e. without the intermediary of episcopal consecration—by the same Sovereign Pontiff: “immediate sibi ab eodem Pontifice Summo impertita”. If this power is conferred immediately by the sole act of the Pope’s will, we do not see how it could derive from the consecration.
Still less so, since the vast majority of theologians and canonists deny absolutely that episcopal consecration confers the power of jurisdiction.
And the discipline of the Church contradicts this thesis. Indeed, if the power of jurisdiction is conferred by consecration, how is it that an elected Sovereign Pontiff who has not yet been consecrated bishop still possesses by divine right the fullness of jurisdiction, as well as infallibility, from the moment he accepts his election? By the same logic, if it is the consecration that confers jurisdiction, then residential bishops who have been appointed but not yet consecrated, although already established at the head of their diocese as true pastors, would have no power of jurisdiction and no right to sit in council, whereas in reality they clearly possess both prerogatives before their episcopal consecration. As for titular bishops, who do not hold any authority over any diocese, they would have been deprived for centuries of exercising a power of jurisdiction that, according to Lumen gentium, they would have received through their consecration.
If one objects that the consecration already grants a power of jurisdiction properly speaking, but one which requires the Pope’s intervention to be exercised concretely, we respond that this distinction is contrived, since Pius XII clearly states that it is the power of jurisdiction in its essence which is immediately communicated by the Pope, who therefore does not merely satisfy a condition required for the proper exercise of this power.
The bishops who will be consecrated on 1 July as auxiliaries of the Society will therefore assume no jurisdiction against the will of the Pope, and will in no way be schismatic.
The bishops who will be consecrated on 1 July as auxiliaries of the Society will therefore assume no jurisdiction against the will of the Pope, and will in no way be schismatic.
Ping
No thanks. Not interested.
I did open the link and saw it was Nazi Niles.
I should have figured.
“The Society defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church’s constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction.” Ebb, it’s going to take me awhile to even understand what that might mean.
Is Nazi Niles the best you've got. Who's your next "example", the homo Michael Voris?
"The Canonical Rejection of the 'State of Necessity' -
The primary response from the Holy See was articulated through the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, issued by Pope John Paul II on July 2, 1988. The Vatican argued that the "state of necessity" claimed by Archbishop Lefebvre was subjective and did not exist in reality. Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, specifically Canon 1382, a bishop who consecrates someone as a bishop without a pontifical mandate incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. The Vatican maintained that the "necessity" required to waive such a penalty must be objective; since the Pope had explicitly forbidden the consecrations, Lefebvre’s decision to proceed was an act of formal disobedience that struck at the very heart of the Church's unity."
Credit: "Pope John Paul II. Apostolic Letter 'Ecclesia Dei'"; "The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary".
Forget her. Listen to what her guest has to say; he's the one in recovery from having been an SSPXer.
Nope. Not interested. Nazi Niles is the Queen of Yellow Journalism.
I’m not surprised you eat that stuff up.
Well anybody who does not believe a “state of necessity” exists is whistling past the synodal graveyard.
It means, like a six-year old caught with his hands in the cookie jar, or Hillary Clinton in any form of testimony, “I didn’t do nuffin,” - so don’t punish me. It is disingenuous to the point of laughter.
He's pro-homo, a big fan of Jimmy Martin S.J. and he has the maturity of the six-year old he's describing.
Don’t pay attention to ebby, kawhill. ebby supports ideas that will get others excommunicated but doesn’t personally want to join the excommunicated - ebby admitted this the other day when stating that she is not going down with the sinking sspx ship. In other words a devil, magpie or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. ebby cherry picks quotes from the confused, fired strickland, excommunicated Lefebvre and others, to confuse others.
Certainly, by the articles ebby posts one could say, in Catholic theology terms, that someone who separates himself from the Catholic Church is traditionally called a Schismatic if he rejects the Church’s unity or authority; a Heretic if he obstinately denies a defined doctrine; and an Apostate if he totally rejects the Christian faith. More simply in pastoral language, a person is said to have “left the Church” or to be “no longer in full communion” with the Church, even though baptism (and thus the basic Christian identity) is considered indelible. Excommunication lingers. This is the road ebby’s cartoon articles promote; avoid it. Wolf in sheep’s clothing seems appropriate.
The oyster is also a flagrant liar.
The above is all fact and admitted by ebby. Deal with it. The most anti-Catholic poser on FR, inside the Caucus and outside the Caucus, is ebby. No one is in second place - another fact.
Your lies about me are not facts.
Your claim to be a practicing Catholic are highly debatable.
Go hop into your hot tub with Jimmy Martin and Tucho.
Those are the homos you claim to be in “communion” with.
kawhill, here are the facts. Facts are not the delusions and lies of the phonies/clowns (like fired strickland) that ebby continually and routinely posts. sspx is in grave danger and sspx is not afraid to drag others down with them. ebby, by his postings, encourages this behavior (although the other day said he wouldn’t go down with the silly, sinking ship of the sspx) and deceives those who believe his posts. You decide:
Your starting off Lent on a roll.
Looks like you gave up charity for the 40 days.
One should note, that in almost every post the oystir makes, he claims his lies to be: “that’s fact”.
His buddy, Tucho the Homo, also does that.
That’s why both of them support the blessing of sodomite “couples”. As Pope Francis said, it’s a fact that there is grace in these type of “unions”. Pope Francis also said fifty percent of all marriages are invalid, and “that’s a fact”.
Who should one believe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.