US Archbishop Installed Without Papal Bull – Francis Couldn't Sign
Archbishop Edward Weisenburger was installed as Archbishop of Detroit on March 18 without a papal bull, reports the Substack-account 'The Pillar'.
The Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, simply wrote his own decree.
The appointment was announced by the Vatican on February 11. Shortly thereafter, Francis was admitted to the hospital.
The papal bull of appointment is normally required for a bishop to take possession of his new diocese.
The nuncio said: "I'm sorry, because normally I should have shown you the bulla, that is normally signed by the Holy Father. Unfortunately, as you know, because of his sickness, the Holy Father was unable to sign it."
Cardinal Pierre added that he had prepared a decree of his own. "Don’t worry, it is all legal. I can see that some canon lawyers are already worried — I don’t know why."
It is expected that the papal bull will arrive later.
The step is unusual, but possible. No one doubts the appointment of Archbishop Weisenburger. …More
@Fra Yaram This is a matter of the proper installation of an ordained bishop taking canonical possession of another diocese.
Can. 382 §1. One promoted as bishop cannot assume the exercise of the office entrusted to him before he has taken canonical possession of the diocese. Nevertheless, he is able to exercise offices which he already had in the same diocese at the time of promotion, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ Can. 409 §2.
Can. 382 §2. Unless he is prevented by a legitimate impediment, one promoted to the office of diocesan bishop must take canonical possession of his diocese within four months of receipt of the apostolic letter if he has not already been consecrated a bishop; if he has already been consecrated, within two months from receipt of this letter.
Can. 382 §3. A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event. In newly erected dioceses, he takes canonical possession when he has seen to the communication of the same letter to the clergy and people present in the cathedral church, with the senior presbyter among those present recording the event.
Can. 382 §4. It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be done within a liturgical act in the cathedral church with the clergy and people gathered together.
Can. 409 §2. When the episcopal see is vacant and unless competent authority has established otherwise, an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar while the see was filled until a new bishop has taken possession of the see. If he has not been designated to the function of diocesan administrator, he is to exercise this same power, conferred by law, under the authority of the diocesan administrator who presides over the governance of the diocese.
___________________________________________________________________________
Can. 1013 No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate.
Everything you said is right and i understand your argumentation. What i am referring to is irregular and exceptional situations. Which means that the ordination is valid but irregular. Then the church will evaluate the situation and decide what to do. For example, bishop lebfevre's ordination's he did were valid but illicit in canonical terms. The church opted to say it was schismatic, Benedict 16 changed that. Other example would be in times of war, where you can't be in direct communication with Rome. In WWII there were some cases where bishops were ordained by other bishops. Anyways, that means the pope will have to review his nomination and decide to give the papal bull of apointment or not.
Maybe before answering all sorts of ridiculous answers, people should read what the canon law says... Its specifies in canon 1013 that in certain exceptional situations, a priest can be ordained bishop before receiving the approval from the Pope. This situation is exactly one of these exceptional situations.
Archbishop Christophe Pierre told the congregation that he had written his own decree authorizing the archbishop’s installation. And, don’t worry, he told people, “it’s all legal.”
"Unless the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church (the organization of parishes, dioceses, bishops, cardinals, Roman bureaucracies and chanceries throughout the world) is totally disrupted and rendered null and void, the Third Secret makes no sense." - Edited quote from Father Malachi Martin, reader of the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960, advisor to Pope John XXIII, and assistant to Cardinal Augustin Bea, during an interview on “Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell” on 4 May 1998.
How valid would it be if Jorge signed it, but is himself, not validly the Pope, because of all the Canon Laws & Apostolic Constitution Laws broken in the process of him coming to the Chair of Peter....plus of course his being a manifest public heretic from that same Chair. Would all the orthodox Cardinals & Canon Lawyers please do their job with respect to this Canon Law shemozzle relating to Jorge's s validity/invalidity?!?!?! Or do they all think a Pope can give the go-ahead for divorced/remarried Catholics to receive Communion sacrilegiously....and still be a valid Pope. Gimme a break!!!
Did not stop the Biden mafia