Quote

Can you explain your responses?

If you go to Bellarmine Forums, or just check out what Ambrose and SJB gave presented here on CathInfo, you'll see how the answers that poster gave to your questions can be more fully explained. I myself don't have the time to go into detail, especially when it comes to something already discussed in depth and in detail.

Quote from: Guest

I have asked some clergy about it.  I will not go into detail on who they are or what they have said or how much weight I have put into what they said.

Some of our clergy err on whether a public heretic can be Pope or not.

Some err on whether we have to obey what a legitimate binds on the Church or not.

Some err on NFP.

Some err on brain death.

Some err in sacramental theology.

Some err regarding the disciplines they "bind" on their faithful.

Some err on Feeneyism.

I'm open to their being formal successors but I'm not strong on our needing to obey them on things that go against our formed conscience or on their having infallibility.  But so long as they are Catholic, objectively, and not public heretics or worse, I believe they can retain formal succession.  I don't insist on it though.  And I certainly don't condemn the contrary opinion because people more knowledgeable and sound hold the contrary opinion and that gives me some pause.  That being said I am not convinced formal succession is necessary for the Church to exist

Then aren't you recognizing and resisting these "potentially" formal successors of the Apostles? How can you have a sacred hierarchy in the traditionalist clergy that is formally and materially succeeding the Apostolic College and yet place individual conscience above it? Does this not make ecclesiastical authority dispensable and ultimately only an adjunct to freedom of conscience?

Isn't this accepting into the stance of the SSPX on the practical level only with the trad clergy instead of the N.O.?

Quote

John Lane is not infallible.  He actually could be wrong about something.

Of course he isn't infallible and is wrong about some things, but he presents docuмentation for his positions. I don't agree with everything he says and the way he approaches things, but he is more meticulous than most other lay theologians out there and that includes clergy, like Fr. Cekada.

I agree with the above post.  And we are in bad enough shape that most clergy probably hold a question opinion on at least one controversial topic.  Some for good reasons some for not such good reasons.

But again, formal bishops are not guaranteed infallibility individually.  

But we are like a bunch of infants discussing how our mother should be.  God has it under control.  We just have to do our part, growing spiritual learning for sound books and avoiding binding controversial topics that on other people's consciences.  

All Catholic Bishops are successors to the Apostles, the debate is whether they are formal or material.

This isn't right, see below:

The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223) Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. (Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)

Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked.

In times of apostasy or "diabolical disorientation" then what good is jurisdiction or hierarchy?  

The hierarchy is in diabolical disorientation and they are the CAUSE of our problems.

I think we better just focus on living the Catholic faith and if this means only reading Catholic books printed before 1959, then so be it.  

Quote

So unfortunate people that leave the NO because it is not Catholic and then are consecrated bishops by Catholic bishops are not apostolic?

Yes, this is exactly right: it is a bad situation, and traddieland is not a "land of milk and honey" as we have seen over and over and over again.

The traditionalist bishops have to humbly recognize their canonical predicament before they can bear worthy fruit.

Quote

I'm not a scholar but that doesn't seem right.

Because it is not right at all: it is a very bad crisis, or rather, a series of crises that are mutually exacerbating themselves.  

Quote

So you disregard the NO but say the hierarchy are not hidden but are NO.  But the ones that do what Catholic bishops always did are not Apostolic.  All Catholic Bishops are successors to the Apostles, the debate is whether they are formal or material.  The Cassicuм theory, which I do not hold says the Novus Ordo holders of the bishops office, but who are not bishops are material and that is good enough to preserve the Church, while others insist that real bishops who are Catholics are merely material.

Have you read all the literature on the Cassiacuм thesis over at Bellarmine Forums? Why not correspond with John Lane or John Daly about these matters since these doubts seem to sincerely disturb you.

Quote

It would appear one can believe the Catholic Bishops are formal Bishops with the implied mandate until the contrary is definitively proven or a valid Pope settles the issue.

This is incorrect. You have to read what has been presented to you and ought to listen to the priests and bishops whom you trust. One cannot believe theological errors knowing that they can be refuted: that's cultivating a bad conscience.

If they are formal successors of the Apostles indeed, then why is the traditionalist movement only deteriorating into more divisions and controversies, instead of the trad bishops uniting and choosing another Pope? Divine Providence will never allow such a thing because it is contrary to the very nature of the Church. Human nature will not allow such a thing either because the trad clergy will always be bickering and condemning each other all the time...

The above is a good post.  

Quote

All Catholic Bishops are successors to the Apostles, the debate is whether they are formal or material.

This isn't right, see below:

Quote from: Herrmann

The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223) Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it. (Herrmann, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)

Quote from: Christ's Church, Monsignor G. VanNoort

Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked.

The succession of traditional Bishops is public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted.  They certainly govern the Church.  Their succession is certainly either material or formal.  There have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles.  I believe it can be argued that they enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and implicitly received from him who is able to communicate it.  They have not arrogated the title of bishop to themselves, it was passed on to them from a valid line of apostolic succession, how does that line become unApostlolic,  they don't just act like bishops but are bishops, they don't merely have orders of a Priest but are in fact bishops.  They do enjoy the complete powers of an apostle, they can minister all the sacraments and consecrate bishops and ordain priests, start seminaries and they do teach and govern.  If this is not done in the Catholic Church, which Church is it that they head?  They do have the power to teach and govern.  

If you look at Griff's writings objectively, he is very familiar with Van Noort and reads strait out of his book on you tube, the last official act of Paul VI before he could no longer be considered even a material Pope was granting universal jurisdiction.

I wish someone would actually read what Griff wrote and refute it line by line.

No one has explained why it would slip by the watchful eyes of the CMRI Priests who vet the articles for the Four Marks if it is a categorically wrong opinion.

All that being said, I see where there is chaos amongst all the Bishops.  It seems no two agree on one topic or another.  But I believe this is due to human failings, the lack of charity in the world, no visible head for 55 years, and some pretty bad lay people to deal with.  Then some may have impure motives, financial motives, be plants, so much goes on that we won't know about until the end.  We can only guess, but I believe it is safe to assume that not all of them are on the up and up.

But for the common layperson, the action to be taken is the same, whether we are in a perpetual state of epikea which seems odd, or we have visible bishops with formal succession which are in fact the Traditional Bishops, which seems plausible, and that we must fortify ourselves with the Sacraments where possible, pray and stay in a state of sanctifying grace.

If the only visible Catholic Bishops we are are arrogating the bishopric to themselves are they not acting against the will of the Church?  Are they not "irregular" because they obtained the bishopric without the mandate?  Should we support such bishops?  Can you see why there are home-aloners?  

Shouldn't they all sit back and wait for the hidden bishops or whoever has the formal succession to do something?  If it is wrong to arrogate the bishopric to oneself as is claimed, have they not done an evil, claiming something that is not rightfully theirs, to obtain a good, the sanctification of souls, thus breaking a most common moral law?  

Lefebvre and Thuc had the mandate and did what a valid Pope would have them do.  How does this "unapostolic" them and their successors?  Did Lefebvre and Thuc become unApostolic when they consecrated bishops against the will of the anti-Church?  What would have happened if they waited for a valid Pope to give them the formal go ahead?

I wish someone would actually read what Griff wrote and refute it line by line.

No one has explained why it would slip by the watchful eyes of the CMRI Priests who vet the articles for the Four Marks if it is a categorically wrong opinion.

No one has proven that Griff and the Four Marks write with the express approval of the CMRI Fathers.

The Priests whom I've consulted do not have the time to read Ruby's massive collection of articles. And those who have tried, cannot make any sense of them.

What he should do, since he is the one who is endeavoring to present his thesis as the correct one, is to make a succinct and clear synopsis of his theories and present them to the CMRI Fathers. What they decide to do is what he should accept, since he posits them together with other traditionalist clergy as being the "formal hierarchy."

At the very least, Ruby should consult John Lane or John Daly before he proceeds with his novel theories.

Quote from: Guest

In times of apostasy or "diabolical disorientation" then what good is jurisdiction or hierarchy?

The point is that we have to keep and defend the faith inviolate and entire, not just pick and choose what to defend or take it upon ourselves to judge what belongs to this deposit of faith: this is what the Protestants do.

Quote

The hierarchy is in diabolical disorientation and they are the CAUSE of our problems.

The sacred hierarchy of the Church can never teach error or lead to it in its ordinary magisterium. You are thinking of individuals in the hierarchy who are contaminated with modernism, liberalism, &c. Even if these individuals constitute the majority of the hierarchy, the sacred hierarchy is still something that is indispensable and forever part of the Catholic Church.

Quote

I think we better just focus on living the Catholic faith and if this means only reading Catholic books printed before 1959, then so be it.

You do that, and are right to do so. Others, however, see how deleterious are the theological errors propagated by those who think that the hierarchy is dispensable or even injurious. This is a condemned error of the Protestant innovators.

What's ironic is that people leave the NO to fight modernism only to be fall for errors like this and compromise their integrity by using the same methods and mentality of the modernists.

The modernists and liberals also think that the hierarchy is only a "trouble-maker" and can be ignored or outright rejected.

Make up your mind, dude!

Do you deny what Our Lady said?  The next great apostasy will come from the very top.

By standing fast to the Catholic Faith we remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Are you CMRI?  Sede?  Home Alone?  SSPX (probably)?  

If the novus ordo structure is still the heirarchy than being faithful means nothing.  

This whole hierarch and jurisdiction argument is mere church rules.  Did Our Lord or Our Lady in ANY APPARITION say "Follow the successor of Peter no matter what he says!"

My problem with the concept of "hierarchy" is that during these times, assisting at the TLM is going against the current hierarchy.  

My problem with "jurisdiction" is that it should be known as "who sent you" and the "who" that "sent you" is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the Head of the Church, as Leo XIII said.  I'm becoming suspicious of the whole "bicephalous" nonsense about invisible and visible head - this seems to apply two heads and the one we can see is the boss.  I don't adhere to that concept.

Every facet of the Holy Church was altered, both large and small, and now I believe that time is not on the side of the Traditional Catholics.

The novus ordo drum beats on.  They don't have to move fast for anyone but they have proven that they will move very fast to act against their so called Extraordinary Form.  

With each passing year, there are less and less novus ordites who remember the preconciliar church.  In the next several years, since Pope Francis is now 76, a new pope will be elected and it will not be long before the new pope was born into the conciliar church.  

The corporate memory of the church is being novus ordited.  

If someone really feels a need for the hierarchy, then the Traditional Catholic bishops are there to fill the bill.  The bishops, traditional ones, have apostolic succession.  Bishops are vicars of Christ too.  They are not mere delegates of a current pope.  

The novus ordo will eventually become a separate church.  

The divorce is inevitable.