Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BenKenobi

You wrote:

“Priests cannot make themselves bishops.”

True. These four SSPX men were consecrated by two bishops. It was illicit, but valid.

“Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. They’ve always had bishops and their priests are raised by the patriarch or their archbishops to the bishopric.”

Yes, but the SSPX has always had a bishop too. First one, and then two bishops who were both consecrated DECADES before SSPX ever existed. Those two then made the other four bishops. All perfectly valid. All perfectly illicit.

“If the priest were to consecrate himself bishop, this is invalid. This is also problematic for all the ordinations performed by the bishops who elevated themselves.”

Right, but all of the bishops in question were consecrated by other bishops. No one “made himself a bishop” in the SSPX.

“Personally, bring them in, but don’t elevate the priests into bishops. Put them under the oversight of someone who has been validly and licitly conferred.”

I think that would be best. I believe, however, that Pope Benedict will generously allow three of the four bishops to continue on as bishops for the SSPX.


24 posted on 07/18/2010 4:25:45 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: vladimir998

Ok I was mistaken. That’s a different problem entirely then. If they were elevated by a licitly consecrated bishop then they’ll stay bishops.

Ironically, SSPX is a much more serious breach than any of the Protestants, we never lost a bishop there.


25 posted on 07/18/2010 4:29:35 PM PDT by BenKenobi (We cannot do everything at once, but we can do something at once. -Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson