Since the subject of a bishop's jurisdiction remains an open question with opinions varied from "vicars of the pope" at one extreme... Here is an alternate thought for the 4th of July.
Think about Leo XIII's condemnation of "Americanism" and the Liberal theory that the electorate grants their private authority to the elected. No, all authority comes from God. That is a definitive biblical fundamental. We elect a civil "ruler", but his authority comes from God, not us. So saith Leo XIII, in conformity with Scripture and Tradition.
Here is the leap... Is this not in some way analogous to "Supplied Jurisdiction"[1], but in the civil sphere? Hold that thought and roll the clock back a millennia or two. Bishops came to be bishops of their diocese in various and different ways, yet they were successors of the Apostles and also had jurisdiction in their dioceses. Regardless of the means by which they obtained the rule of a diocese, their jurisdictional authority came from God. The faithful accepted their bishop, regardless of how he came to be there (unless he were a heretic, and then they did not). The relationship even seems more to be one between a putative ruler and subjects (and this seems even the case be it post-revolution government, President, or Pope).
Does not the notion of supplied jurisdiction make the current thorny question just resolve into quietude? If Bp Strickland leaves (as he did), and allows another to take his place, then it is so. If he did not, then some would remain faithful to him and some to the replacement, but *all* would be under the jurisdiction of a bishop.
Does not the application of supplied jurisdiction also make the relationship of subject and ruler more in conformity with the free act of the will in charity that one comes to believe that our Lord expects of us?
Since the subject of a bishop's jurisdiction remains an open question with opinions varied from "vicars of the pope" at one extreme... Here is an alternate thought for the 4th of July.
Think about Leo XIII's condemnation of "Americanism" and the Liberal theory that the electorate grants their private authority to the elected. No, all authority comes from God. That is a definitive biblical fundamental. We elect a civil "ruler", but his authority comes from God, not us. So saith Leo XIII, in conformity with Scripture and Tradition.
Here is the leap... Is this not in some way analogous to "Supplied Jurisdiction"[1], but in the civil sphere? Hold that thought and roll the clock back a millennia or two. Bishops came to be bishops of their diocese in various and different ways, yet they were successors of the Apostles and also had jurisdiction in their dioceses. Regardless of the means by which they obtained the rule of a diocese, their jurisdictional authority came from God. The faithful accepted their bishop, regardless of how he came to be there (unless he were a heretic, and then they did not). The relationship even seems more to be one between a putative ruler and subjects (and this seems even the case be it post-revolution government, President, or Pope).
Does not the notion of supplied jurisdiction make the current thorny question just resolve into quietude? If Bp Strickland leaves (as he did), and allows another to take his place, then it is so. If he did not, then some would remain faithful to him and some to the replacement, but *all* would be under the jurisdiction of a bishop.
Does not the application of supplied jurisdiction also make the relationship of subject and ruler more in conformity with the free act of the will in charity that one comes to believe that our Lord expects of us?
1. For an excellent summary of Supplied Jurisdiction, see "Supplied Jurisdiction", Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, at https://angeluspress.org/products/supplied-jurisdiction.
God bless Bishop Strickland!