Follow by Email

Friday, March 31, 2017

A few more thoughts on the issue of Jurisdiction.


Bishop Giles Butler and the late Bishop Louis Vezelis have preached and taught ad nauseum the idea that Bishops receive the power of ordinary jurisdiction directly from God.

As evidence of their claim they often site a quote from Pope Pius XII


Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943

"Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord;" [62] moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. [63] Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, [64] and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: "Touch not my anointed one!" [65] For Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit."


Somehow they try to claim that in this passage the "Supreme Pontiff" is Jesus Christ.  Never mind the fact that the title "Supreme Pontiff" has never once been used by the Church (or anyone other than these two Bishops) as a title for God (Father, Son, or Holy Ghost) and has ONLY been used as a title for a Pope.

As further evidence that their interpretation of this is wrong, I site 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia - subject: "Bishops:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm


"Two classes of bishops must be distinguished, not with regard to the power of order, for all bishops receive the fullness of the priesthood but with regard to the power of jurisdiction: the diocesan bishop and the titular bishop or, as he was called before 1882 the episcopus in partibus infedelium. The former is here considered. Those belonging to the second class cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops there have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can; however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction. (See AUXILIARY BISHOP.) Such a bishop is also called vicarius in pontificalibus, i.e. a representative in certain ceremonial acts proper to the diocesan bishop, sometimes suffragan bishop, episcopus suffraganeus. In the proper sense of the term, however, the suffragan bishop is the diocesan bishop in his relations with the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs, while the bishop who is independent of any metropolitan is called an exempt bishop, episcopus exemptus. The titular bishop may also be coadjutor bishop when he is appointed to assist an ordinary bishop in the administration of the diocese. Sometimes he is incorrectly called auxiliary bishop. He possesses some powers of jurisdiction determined by the letters Apostolic appointing him. Often also, notably in missionary countries, the coadjutor bishop is named cum jure successionis, i.e. with the right of succession; on the death of the diocesan bishop he enters on the ordinary administration of the diocese."


If a Bishop receives the powers of "ordinary jurisdiction" directly from God by virtue of his consecration as Bishop - how is it that there are Bishops "titular bishops" whoi clearly have "no ordinary jurisdiction", "no power of jurisdiction", or "some powers of jurisdiction"?  If these powers are by virtue of their office as Bishop, how is it that there are some Bishops who do not have this power?

Think about this.

It does appear that back in 1917 there were a few theologians who questioned where a Bishop received this power of Jurisdiction as evidenced from this encyclopedia:

"It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445). Another question also discussed is whether the potestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or of jurisdiction (Sägmüller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Frieberg, 1900-04, 24-25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers of jurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative, dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers."


So, in 1917 there appears to have been a minority of theologians who thought that the power of jurisdiction came by virtue of the office, or from God and not the Pope.  

As the Church always does, when there is a dispute, the Pope clears the matter up and Pope Pius XII did in the quote above.  The power of ordinary jurisdiction comes from the Supreme Pontiff - who is the Supreme Pontiff?  

I challenge any and all to find one reference to the "Supreme Pontiff" as anyone other than the Pope.

I would like ANYONE to post a single reference to me where the term "Supreme or Highest Pontiff" is used to denote Jesus Christ or God.  

In all my searching, i can find this title to be used exclusively for the Pope.

Of course, Bishop Giles Butler will refute by saying that a mere laymen has no right to question his interpretation of this, because he has "ordinary jurisdiction" (see the circular reasoning).

Just remember, the when the heresies of the Novus Ordo were imposed, those who dared question it were told that they were mere laymen and by questioning their Bishops, they were being disobedient and "uncatholic".  

We all know how that turned out.

Jesus warned us that "when the shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered" - these are confusing times, but we must do our best to hold to the TRUTH in all things. 





No comments: