LoT,
I am posting this in a new thread, as the subject is it deserves its own thread.
LoT wrote:
That my suggestion that the hierarchy, if it exists at all (remember this issue seemingly had died until you brought it up again) it is either with the traditional bishops, in the woods or with the Novus Ordo? Then how complicated is it? What would be an additional option?
I think you operate under an assumption. Bishops may be adhering to the Conciliar popes, but still have the Faith. So long as the bishops, lawfully appointed have not lost the Faith, they remain in their office.
They are only "with the Novus Ordo," due to incorrectly believing that the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church.
Bishops in this category are neither schismatic or heretics, therefore they are Catholics. There are still alive today appointees from Pope Pius XII. We could also discuss other sources of bishops as well.
Hi Ambrose,
I admire you for posting under your name. I also like a lot of what you write. I disagree that the Novus Ordo Hierarchy is legitimately approved. I do not believe they have been validly consecrated or ordained to start. You would need to convince me I'm wrong on this before we could continue.
Regarding John 23 I am not sure we can point to a definitive heresy. I believe his cuмulative acts would lead one in hindsight to doubt his validity.
There can be no doubt about the false popes who followed. They were all public heretics and agents of Satan to snatch as many souls as possible. Those under them are not the legitimate hierarchy but the opposite. An anti-hierarchy winning souls for Satan. That is the sad hard truth. It is a truth that can't legitimately be disputed.
You have to look in the woods for your hierarchy or God forbid look at the Catholic hierarchy we have and can see. Or admit we don't have any. Most knowledgeable SVs look to the woods. I claim it is not de fide that they have come to the correct conclusion and would add that my opinion which I have also not seen to be proven as de fide is that God has preserved the legitimate hierarchy in a visible way.
Now I add further, that I am incredibly confused on why such a position would be so loathed and further why not only the position is loathed but those who hold it.
I loath the position that the Novus Ordo maintain the legitimate hierarchy. But I do not loath you. I have a great respect for you. I do not even loath the Bishop in the woods theory and certainly not those that hold that position. I am open to the fact that they could be correct. When a bunch of people who are smarter than me tell me I'm wrong it gives me pause, but they cannot convince me. They have not responded to all my objections in a satisfactory way.
But again I'm not sure why so many are completely closed to the idea that our legitimate hierarchy is right where it appears to be, with our traditional hierarchy. The only Catholic hierarchy that is known to exist. Can someone explain why this is such a loathsome opinion?
Is it Catholic to hate one who holds the position merely because he holds it and proposes the theory for scrutiny so we can come to a better understanding of the issue. This is how I have sorted through the mess; by learning from those who know more than I. Griff Ruby is very willing to admit he is wrong if it can be proven. So am I. It has not been proven wrong to my satisfaction.
Some defend the Novus Ordo Hierarchy but many hesitate to go into detail on the bishop in the woods theory. On its face it does not seem plausible. The Church is visible because her members profess the Faith. But what use is it to profess the faith if no one is around to hear it. A valid member, must be subject to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is why some force themselves to accept Vatican 2 and the invalid Sacraments and Mass and the heretical canon law and all the rest. Isn't it more Catholic to submit to the visible Catholic bishops? A valid member must partake of the Sacraments, but according to many we can only get valid Sacraments through irregular Bishops. But others would argue that it is schismatic to get Sacraments, apart from danger of death, through irregular Bishops. They don't have the apostolic mandate they say. This means they are acting without authority. And those who go to them approve of them acting without authority. Must the Church die with the last valid Pope? The mandate is implied and that is all that is needed. It is up to us to know our faith and to see if Bishops preach heresy. If they do preach heresy they can't have the implied mandate. But if they do not preach heresy, by what authority do we claim that it is de fide that they do not have the implied apostolic mandate? Who says the mandate is not implied for these Bishops consecrated by one authorized to consecrate bishops by Pius XII?
The mandate was implied in Communist countries when the formal mandate could not be given. Same during times of great persecution. The Church never asks the impossible nor is she ever unreasonable. But it would be unreasonable and it is impossible to insist on a formal Apostolic Mandate for their to be regular Bishops preserving the Church. Are we not now under a great persecution? It is not impossible to communicate with a living Pope. Are we to fold up our tents and go home? The mandate is implied for those preserving the Church and her most precious soul-saving Sacraments.
Bishop Pivuranus gave a sermon on jurisdiction and stopped short of speaking on whether traditional Bishops had formal authority or not. The topic was of great interest to me and I listened very carefully. I do not lie though some will accuse me of it. I don't think it is a mistake that he did this. I do not recall the sermon or have the links but it can be found on the traditional Catholic sermon link. If you asked him directly would he admit he is not sure either way? Would he say he is regular. Is he guaranteed to be correct if he he claims to be irregular?
This unlike the Feeneyite issue, is something that unlearned people like us could probably benefit from not concerning ourselves with to the point where we disparage others over it. On this issue it might just be good to keep quiet and be as Catholic as can be. This issue is debatable whereas the Feeneyite error or heresy is not.
Bishop Pivuranus told Daily Catholic not to post articles on the una cuм issue. This is another debatable issue that we need not try to settle if doing such makes us lose our peace of mind and hinders our spiritual life. It is a debatable topic much like I believe the issue of the hierarchy to be.
We are in such a mess because we have been without a visible head for 55 years. These debates are the natural result. Throw in human nature with our bias and hatred and we have the perfect storm. I say say our traditional hierarchy are right where they appear to be, others claim them hidden. Most people aware of the Novus Ordo heresies and all the nonsense that goes with it would not consider their "clergy" to be where the Catholic hierarchy to be. Mainly because they are neither Catholic nor clergy. That would be worth settling. But whether the hierarchy is where it appears to be - with the Traditional Bishops - or hidden, might, like the una cuм issue, be best settled by a valid Pope someday.
I am not aware of any NO Bishops that have the faith. That is why many believe they are hidden. The idea that they must be Pius XII appointees is what leads people to stay at home. I believe God preserves His Church with Bishops with fullness of authority. I'm open to the contrary opinion. I accept the doctrine that the Bishops get their authority from the Apostolic See but I interpret the application of that doctrine differently than most others do.
Perhaps the Church can still exist with only "irregular" bishops. But "irregular" compared to what? The Novus Ordo "bishops"? Give me a break. What is the basic minimum necessary for the Church to exist? One Bishop that is a formal successor of the Apostles? I don't see how people can doubt that our traditional bishops are formal successors of the Apostles. But if they are not, can the Church still exist if only one such "irregular" Bishop exists? Or does it only take one living valid Priest who can consecrate the Most Holy Eucharist? I have heard speculation that the world will end when Christ is no longer made Physically Present on Earth. Or does it only take one living layperson with the faith? Points have been made for all the above. I believe we need at least one valid Bishop and I believe our traditional Bishops are valid. They were consecrated by Bishops who were under Pius XII. The apostolic mandate is implied and that is all the doctrine calls for. The apostolic mandate is implied because our traditional Bishops are Catholic Bishops doing Catholic things. They are not acting against the Catholic Church but are in fact the Catholic Church, doing what Catholic Bishops do, preserving the Faith and the Sacraments. If not them then who? I keep forgetting those hidden somewhere. Who are they preserving the Catholic Faith and Sacraments for?
But how does one opinion or the other on this topic effect our salvation? Those who hold that our hierarchy are hidden give the home-aloners reason to stay home. After all, if the hidden hierarchy people are correct then we are all under irregular Bishops without the Apostolic mandate. In a sense we could be considered to be acting against the will of the Church and God. This is why some, like you, force themselves to accept the Nouvs Ordo hierarchy. But the proof to the contrary, at least form what I have learned does not support that. It cannot be the Novus Ordo hierarchy because again, they are neither Catholic nor clergy.
I hope these words do not offend you in any way Ambrose. As I said, I respect you alot and would not want to lose your respect.
May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John