So here’s a question: Isn’t this essentially the same situation as the SSPX bishops, only Bishop Yue doesn’t celebrate the Mass by the 1962 Rite?
11 July 2012
%d bloggers like this:
11 July 2012
So here’s a question: Isn’t this essentially the same situation as the SSPX bishops, only Bishop Yue doesn’t celebrate the Mass by the 1962 Rite?
12 July 2012 at 12:40 am
A part of me wonders just how voluntary it was, and the “allowed himself” bit sticks in my craw. Catholics don’t have it easy in that part of the world. Maybe he thought he could try to do some good?
12 July 2012 at 8:00 am
There is an essential difference. In the consecration of the 4 Bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he did not bestow an apostolic mission upon them.
To do so would be an act of schism.
The SSPX Bishops were consecrated in order to provide the two sacraments linked to the fullness of the priesthood.
In the case of the Chinese Patriotic Association, it is a separate church under the authority of the Chinese Government. Very similar to the relationship between the Russian Government and the Orthodox.
12 July 2012 at 8:20 am
Rome is most likely to release lightning bolts over sacramental issues, most especially simulated or invalid sacraments (which, when intentional, are acts of violence that breed confusion and division among the faithful) or sacraments that confer jurisdiction and the power to ordain (most especially the ordination of bishops), for the same reason.
12 July 2012 at 10:28 am
Quick Note: The consecration of a bishop does not confer jurisdiction.
12 July 2012 at 10:34 am
But the bishop may claim the power to ordain. That’s why it’s so sensitive for Rome.
12 July 2012 at 11:17 am
The bishop doesn’t have to claim the power – he has it period. Whether he uses it licitly or not I think is beside the point.
When you say ordain: Do you mean ordain priests or bishops?
Back to the original topic: jurisdiction is related to an Apostolic Mission and this only comes from the Pope. If someone consecrates a bishop without a Pontifical Mandate AND gives him an Apostolic Mission (Jurisdiction over a territory) then it is a schism. This describes the situation of the CPA.
If someone consecrates a bishop w/o mandate but does not give a ‘mission’ then it is an abuse of episcopal power.
The issue in the case of the SSPX is, in my opinion, that the consecration of the four bishops allowed the SSPX to continue to be independent of the hierarchy in terms of the need for bishops for confirmation and more importantly ordination of priests.