WHEN THE CHOSEN POPE IS NOT A BISHOP!

Can a Priest Pope give a Priest the Power to Ordain Him a Bishop?
 
The pope has to be bishop of Rome. Here are some problems with that doctrine.
 
Stephen II is listed as a true pope despite dying before his Episcopal consecration. The pope becomes pope from election. To suggest that a man isn’t pope until he is made a bishop implies that God elected a man as pope through the Church and then took back the man’s life breath before he could become pope! That is an impious suggestion.
 
The answer is that Stephen II had authority to run the Church as potential pope. Somebody had to run the Church until his consecration as bishop and naturally it had to be him. He was not consecrated so he can be considered never to have been a true pope.  

It is thought that “Benedict IX who was only eleven when elected in 1032 AD could not possibly have received his ordination as a priest and bishop validly for he was too young. He was only a child. That we do not recognise the marriages of children has nothing to do with the law of the land or the church. It has as more to do with their inability to understand what they are doing. But Benedict IX undoubtedly had the powers of a bishop from his election not his consecration as bishop for he was a true pope.”  

The reply is that if you can be confirmed validly at 11 and you can then you can also be validly ordained.  

There is nothing in the history of the popes to support the new doctrine among some pseudo-Catholic sects that if they elect a priest as pope he automatically has bishop like powers. If God foresaw that these sects would be the true Catholic Church, surely he would give evidence from the history of the popes that their controversial new doctrine that priests can be elected pope and then acquire the power of a bishop is safe and correct?
 
The false pope who died in 2006, Pius XIII, consecrated a priest a bishop despite being a priest. He was then consecrated by this false bishop. He doesn’t have valid Episcopal orders for only real bishops have the power to ordain bishops and priests. Does a priest pope or lay pope have the power to enable a priest to ordain him as a bishop?
 
His followers would have something like this to say to this,  

It is the Holy Orders of the Vatican II Church that we should worry about not those of Pope Pius XIII. Modernist Pope Paul VI enforced a new priestly ordination rite in 1968. This rite is invalid according to the decrees of Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae for in the ordination part it doesn’t make it clear that the priests are being ordained to offer sacrifice. It just says an ambiguous sacrifices to God not the sacrifice meaning that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same sacrifice. However the rite is valid if the bishop intends to make a priest to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass. But with the indifferentism of Vatican IIism we should assume that no bishop seriously intends that and that the ordinations are invalid. And if the bishops really expect us to believe they have the right intention they should state that and force the change of the rite. Pope Benedict XVI is the first Vatican II pope to have been ordained a bishop under the new Vatican II rite which is also dubious. If there is any doubt about the Vatican II popes being false popes there can be no doubt at all that this is true of Benedict XVI who falsely regards himself as a bishop.  

The Church accepts that a marriage can seem to all intents and purposes to be real and consumed properly but they bring in psychology to excuse annulling such marriages. They accept the nonsensical view that a couple who didn’t know that marriage was forever and who got married didn’t really marry – their minds prevented it. If such nonsense is true no priest can be sure that anybody is really getting married in front of him and no bishop can be sure that the newly ordained priest is a priest in reality. Maybe his ordination can be annulled too! These beliefs prevent the intention necessary for administering and receiving a valid sacrament.
 
The new Episcopal consecration ceremony is worse and is impotent at making bishops. The current bishops of the so-called Roman Catholic Church are not bishops but laymen or just priests. The old Mass made it clear at the offertory that bread and wine were being offered to God in view of them being the body and blood of Christ. So the body and blood of Christ was what was offered at the offertory and which was the sacrifice referred to when the people prayed, MAY THE LORD ACCEPT THE SACRIFICE AT YOUR HANDS. In the New Mass the bread and wine are offered as symbols of the sacrifices of the people and God is asked to make them the bread of life and our spiritual drink. Ambiguous terms. So the sacrifice referred to when the people pray the prayer now is the sacrifice of themselves and there is no hint in the New Mass that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is being offered. Therefore the New Mass is invalid.

The apostle Paul said that Jesus could come any moment so those who have wives must live as they have none for the time is short (1 Corinthians (7:27;29-31 ). Paul commanded that Christians should abstain from marriage unless it was the only way to stop themselves fornicating for marriage leaves you free from the Lord. These teachings are taught by inspired scripture in 1 Corinthians 7. The Church of the apostles then gave full Episcopal powers to bishops and priests as well for it was so urgent and there was no time for complexity. What mattered was getting the sacraments to as many people as possible. There is no reason to believe the apostles changed this rule. The Church changed it after but this change can be no more than a rule that like with confirmation the bishop is the normal minister of ordination though priests can confirm so it seems priests can ordain in a case of necessity as well.  

The bishops have all supported the ecumenism and indifferentism of Vatican II. Nearly all bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church have also accepted the ecumenism. Therefore they believe that it doesn’t really matter what you believe though they act as if they believe it does matter. This means that very few valid ordinations take place today. The Eucharist of these religions is now simply bread and wine and the sacraments are impotent. Even baptism and marriage are useless in these sects. The baptiser in these sects does not intend to do as the Church does which is the essential requirement for validity in the minister. To him it’s just another rite. If you don’t believe in religious beliefs you cannot intend to baptise validly. Then you do the ritual for no reason, you do it just because you do it.  

The pope is the rock the Church is built on. He is the foundation. Jesus said that no foundation could be built on sand. The pope needs to be a bishop. What if there were no clergy but only a priest left who becomes pope? Then surely this pope would have the power to restore the holy orders if he is the rock the Church is built on? The Pope being the rock does not mean he will defend the faith and will care about it though he should. What it means that he is the supreme teacher of the Church and the spiritual father of the Church. He cannot be spiritual father without having the power to restore holy orders. God would have ensured that if the Vatican departed from the faith and the world was full of invalid ordinations that the pope he chooses would be a priest or bishop with the power to consecrate new bishops and priests to make the sacraments available to the Church.

To suggest that the bishop can be father to the flock and the pope when he is just a deacon is foolish. The pope’s title is Vicar of Christ. He stands in the place of Christ on earth. He is supreme father of the Church on earth. If this is so, then the deacon pope can ordain bishops without being a bishop. He can preserve spiritual fatherhood that comes through the administration of the sacraments. He can ordain bishops to facilitate this fatherhood.
 
There are instances of priests ordained under papal permission by priests. The infallible Council of Florence decreed that bishops alone can ordain bishops and priests but added that this was because the bishop was the ordinary minister of this sacrament (page 1136, 1138, Encyclopaedia of Theology, A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, Edited by Fr Karl Rahner, Burns & Oates, London, 1975). The bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation but in necessity a priest can administer confirmation. So the Council is saying that Pius XIII is right. Naturally, the exception in the case of having the power of ordaining priests and bishops can only apply to a pope who is a layman or a deacon or a priest and when the need is great. Otherwise you would have rebel priests imagining they have the right to ordain bishops and priests all over the place. It would lead to chaos. So we conclude that the intention of the Council was to recognise the power of a lay pope or priest pope to ordain priests and bishops but only if there were no bishops to do it for him. We know from the history of the early Church that though bishops were over priests both levels were thought to have had the same sacramental powers to ordain. Later the Church made new rules. The pope can change these rules. The first person to mention that bishops alone had the full powers was Tertullian (page 1129). “We have already mentioned the customs of the Church of Alexandria (possibly also followed by Lyons) as late as the 3rd century, when the bishop was consecrated by the college of presbyters. Cassian admits that he was he was ordained by the priest Paphnutius in Egypt (Conferences, IV, I)” (page 1136).

The emperor Charlemagne “ordered the priests Willehad (d. 799) and Ludger (d. 785) to ordain other priests in the missionary territories of Frisia and Saxony” (page 1136). Pope “Boniface I, in Sacrae Religionis (1 February 1400), gave permission to the Abbot of S. Osith in Essex to confer all orders up to and including the priesthood. This was revoked by the bull Apostolicae Sedis (6 February 1403), at the insistence of the Bishop of London, who felt that his jurisdiction had been interfered with by the abbot. The revocation was not therefore on dogmatic grounds. See DS 1145f. Martin V, in Gerentes ad vos (16 November 1427), also gave permission for orders up to the priesthood (DS 1290) and Innocent VIII, in Exposcit (9 April 1489), up to the deaconate” (page 1136).  
 
REPLY: If the pope being lay or a priest couldn’t ordain bishops or priests then why is there no proof that scripture or tradition teaches this doctrine? Would God knowing what would happen to the Vatican allow it to be thought that the pope can do it. To say yes is to say he doesn’t look after his Church and protect her from the triumph of the gates of Hell.
 
God would not leave any doubt whatsoever about the pope’s Episcopal consecration especially if he is restoring the papacy in Pius XIII.
 
The pope being the rock the Church is built on does not imply that the pope has the power to give a priest or layman the power to ordain him as a bishop. The sacraments belong to Christ not the pope or the Church. Say the pope tried to exercise his power or authority to block the priestly power to change bread and wine into his body and blood throughout the world except in the Vatican. If he tried God would still defy him. It wouldn't work. A true pope cannot be elected unless there is a bishop on stand by to ordain him if he isn’t a priest or bishop yet.
 
If the pope is not a bishop and he has the power to delegate to someone the power to ordain him a bishop even if that person is not a bishop himself then we are dealing with a very irregular way of making the pope the bishop of Rome. But God will never ask us to restore the papacy using such a controversial method. It is too different from the way God wants the Church run.

Before you can claim the right to elect a new pope, you have to use the legal process of canon law to try and remove the doubtful pope. If he doesn’t resign you can ignore him and appoint a new pope. It is safer to wait until the doubtful pope dies and then elect a successor after canonically acquiring the faculties to do so even if the Vatican claims these facilities.

They will reply that this only works if the Church whose courts you go to is indeed the Catholic Church. They say that the current body calling itself the Roman Catholic Church is a false Church. A Church is a community united by faith and doctrine. A Church that alters its essential teachings ceases to be the same Church but breaks away from what it used to be and becomes a sect. Its canon law has no force under divine law.
 
In reply we say that the Roman Catholic Church is a confused Church that bitterly refuses to submit to the will of God. As a precaution, we can try and obey both codes of canon law in dealing with this situation and electing a pope who can be loyal to his office.

No Copyright