Skip to main content

AI Overview: "In conclusion, the idea of supplied jurisdiction extending to cover an antipope's creation of cardinals is a contradiction of canonical principles. It would require the Church to validate an act that, by its very nature, is a public rejection of the Church's own legitimate authority"


AI Overview
There is no Catholic Church theory that states supplied jurisdiction makes cardinals appointed by an antipope valid
. An antipope has no legitimate papal authority or jurisdiction to appoint cardinals, so any such appointment is canonically null and void. 
Here is an overview of the concepts in your query:
Supplied jurisdiction
  • In Catholic Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction allows the Church to provide governing authority in extraordinary, exceptional circumstances for the good of the faithful.
  • It typically applies to cases like confession or marriage where a priest lacks normal faculties but the faithful are in danger of death, or when there is common error or positive and probable doubt about a priest's faculties.
  • The Church itself, the Mystical Body of Christ, is understood to supply the jurisdiction, not an earthly superior. 
Antipopes and their appointments
  • An antipope is a person who makes a false claim to be pope in opposition to a legitimately elected one.
  • Because an antipope lacks true papal authority, all of their official ecclesiastical acts, including the appointment of new cardinals, are invalid.
  • Cardinals created by an antipope are called "pseudocardinals" or "quasi-cardinals".
  • Historically, during periods like the Great Western Schism, rival claimants to the papacy created their own colleges of cardinals. When a single pope was eventually recognized, the appointments made by the antipopes were annulled. 
Why supplied jurisdiction does not apply to antipopes
The theory of supplied jurisdiction cannot be used to validate an antipope's appointments for several key reasons:
  1. Scope of application: Supplied jurisdiction is invoked for specific, limited acts for the spiritual good of the faithful (e.g., confession, marriage). It does not grant general legislative or governing power, which is what is required to create a cardinal.
  2. No error in the faithful: Supplied jurisdiction is sometimes applied in cases of "common error," where the faithful reasonably but mistakenly believe a priest has faculties. No such error could exist regarding a claimant to the papacy, as the legitimate successor is a matter of public fact, and the validity of a papal appointment is not based on the perception of the faithful.
  3. Source of authority: The Church supplies jurisdiction from its own divine authority, in place of a priest's ordinary human superior. An antipope, by definition, is acting against the Church's authority, making it impossible for the Church to validate his illegitimate acts. 
In conclusion, the idea of supplied jurisdiction extending to cover an antipope's creation of cardinals is a contradiction of canonical principles. It would require the Church to validate an act that, by its very nature, is a public rejection of the Church's own legitimate authority. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...