Regarding the ancient discipline, which has been the subject of some posts above, Pope Pius XII expressly says that it has long been revoked, and that he has established the new discipline for the whole Church, which also takes its sanction from the faith laid out at the Vatican Council of the Supreme Pontiff's universal jurisdiction.

So due distinctions must be made. While in the first ages of Christendom, such consecrations were lawful under the positive law of the Church itself subject to the provisions made or consented to by the Roman Pontiff, today they would be lawful but only under epikeia in cases of necessity.

There must be a distinction to be made between a bishop being chosen to rule a territory and a bishop being consecrated to provide a sacramental need (perceived, at least), as in holy oils, confirmations, and ordinations. The former is a normal role for a bishop, the latter is an incomplete role.

I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.

I do not know if this was referring to my post, but if so, we are agreed.  It cannot apply to the traditional bishops, but it can apply to diocesan bishops who are received into the the diocese by their diocesan clergy, as this recognition would give them legitimacy and the tacit recognition of the pope.  

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote

I don't believe tacit consent or approval can apply to traditional bishops.

I do not know if this was referring to my post, but if so, we are agreed.  It cannot apply to the traditional bishops, but it can apply to diocesan bishops who are received into the the diocese by their diocesan clergy, as this recognition would give them legitimacy and the tacit recognition of the pope.  

The pope now appoints all bishops. Why would the Diocesan clergy "receive" any other  candidate? Their approval isn't necessary, nor do they have any role in choosing the candidate.

I am referring to a case where there is no pope.  That was the context.  I was responding to the article from Bp. Pivarunas, which gives the names of some diocesan bishops who were recognized as bishops during a state of sedevacante.  

The principle is clear and Catholic.  During a state of sedevacante, diocesan bishops can fill the vacancy of their diocese by tacit recognition of the pope, as they are received into their diocese by the clergy of that diocese.  

This has not been done in this crisis, but it has been recognized as lawful in the history of the Church.  Read more here:  http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm

Hi Nishant,

Thank you for responding to me yet again.

Just to stick to the crux of the matter, which you are very good at doing I want to ask or re-ask the following questions, the first of which you may have already answered but I would like to see your response nonetheless.

1.  Do you agree that Divine Law, which states that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office, is more certain than the supposed teaching at an interregnum can last longer than a certain unspecified amount of time.  (The question is almost rhetorical and I hope we can agree on the answer).  And if we can agree on the answer the idea of there being a certain limit on an interregnum becomes mute.  For if it is certain that a public heretic cannot be Pope then it is certain that an interregnum can last as long as public heretics claim the office.

2.  Where those who thought certain valid popes were invalid Popes because of a supposed public heresy they would not retract wrong, because it is incorrect to believe a public heretic cannot hold office, or were they wrong because it was concluded that the claimants were not public heretics, at least after amending their position when the error was brought to their attention?  If it is not wrong to believe that public heretics cannot hold office then your point about people being wrong in the past as to whether one was a Pope or not is mute, because the current and past claimants are undeniably public heretics and undeniably have "bound" on the Church what valid Popes cannot bind.

3.  My question on whether valid traditional Bishops, regardless of the type of jurisdiction they hold, being both apostolic and visible, as they are successors of the Apostles, has not be answered.  If they are truly successors of the Apostles then the type of jurisdiction they have does not enter into the equation.  Are you saying they are not valid successors of the Apostles if they only have supplied jurisdiction?

4.  I asked if all bishops must be consecrated by the will of a reigning Pontiff or not is of intrinsic necessity or just a good discipline under normal times.

5.  I believe before Vatican 2 bishops have been consecrated without a valid Pope approving it, due to persecutions, a long interregnum, lack of communication, and during the GWS when no one was sure who the Pope was or even if we had one.  So am I correct to state that the idea that Pope must approve a consecration in order for it to be apostolic is not always the case, not a case of intrinsic necessity?

6.  The above simplified means that during normal times it is indeed proper for a Pope to approve the consecrations and to do consecrations against his expressed will would be wrong, but when there is no Pope how can we expect one who does not exist to approve it?

7.  Is the Church forced to sit on her hands and not consecrate anyone and supply the ordinary means of sanctifying grace when there is no Pope?  Is it de fide that no Bishop is apostolic or visible, and does not have ordinary jurisdiction during these extraordinary times?  Would Fenton, Pius V, X or XII insist on that during these times, if they themselves were alive but not Pope?
Are you entirely sure that our traditional bishops are not apostolic by the direct will of Christ Himself and have their authority from Him during these extraordinary times?  It would seem a bit of a stretch to insist on the contrary.

I do not understand why the traditional bishops are not what make the Church apostolic and visible.

And, given the circuмstances, I am not sure how we can infallibly insist that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction (not over certain territories, but over their flocks).  

And even if they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, how can we say the Church does not continue her Apostolicity in them?  Why must we, instead, insist that the heretics legitimately hold office or old non-heretical bishops that no one knows about are the visible and apostolic Church?

Yes it is lawful (Epikeia) for it defends the common good - it is only dangerous when it no longer defends the common good as judged by GOD. The Spiritual aspect of our faith is being wholly ignored here so it is more of the same. Think about it this way - the entire reason for the Traditional movement is the simple fact that the common good isnt being defended - nor are the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith given man by GOD specifically for his guidance. This is where the judgement lies.  No False Shepherd can get away with it for long. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Those are the words of Our Lord.  So the real question is not whether or not Epikeia is lawful - the question is whether or not Traditional Bishops use of Epikeia is for the common good in the face of an alternative where following Ecclesiastic Law offers a viable ability to be orthodox. With Modernism infiltrating the hierarchy to such a degree , in my view it is not only prudent but essentially the ONLY Solution.  The dangers of following outright Heretics poses the greater danger than following Orthodox Catholic Bishops of good will. The Public and manifest Heresies of those who supposedly hold eccesiastic power poses the greater threat.

Malleus, the application of epieikeia can either be legitimate or not. Because it is a private judgment, it is dangerous. I agree that it can apply to trad priests and bishops. I'll repeat what I just said a few posts back:

An argument can be made for the application of epieikeia to the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, but this merely provides for the necessity of the sacraments, not the power to rule.

Apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.  
 
 

The power of orders is immediately directed to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is immediately directed to ruling the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium) and through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects (judicial power), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law (coactive or coercive power). These last three powers are functions of the same sacred jurisdictional authority with which the Church is endowed as a perfect society.

The power of jurisdiction is divided into: (1) power of forum externum, when directed principally to the common good, in so far as it regulates the social relations of the members and produces public juridical effects; and power of forum internum, when directed principally to private good, in so far as it regulates the relations of consciences with God and is exercised per se secretly and with prevalently moral effects; (2) ordinary power, when ipso jure (by law) it is connected with an office, and delegated power, when it is granted to a person by commission or delegation. Ordinary power is further divided into proper, i.e., annexed to an office and exercised in one’s own name (nomine proprio), and vicarious, i.e., annexed to an office but exercised in another’s name.

“For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff. But if, as happens at times, some other persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circuмstances being very plainly determined. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)

“…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

“ …this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.) (Pope Pius VI, apostolic letter Caritas, 13th April 1791)

“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.” (Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa Divine Constitution.)

Many other things have been posted here to support this. The trad bishops are simply not Successors to the Apostles. This isn't a criticism, it's just a fact.

The problem here is that facts that have already been established as pertaining to Catholic doctrine are being adjusted to suit the various theories doing the rounds in the present day, rather than the other way around.

This is a problem that I keep seeing within the coteries of certain traditionalist Catholics, and you, SJB and others are seeing this too. It is daunting and terrifying to behold this continue.

To think our understanding of dogmas such as Apostolicity can evolve with time is the very essence of modernism. It is altogether inadmissible and even the very thought is frightening.

Like I said, there is no problem at all with any number of varying explanations or differing applications of the principles involved here to the present day. But the Catholic principles themselves elucidated above are by no means up for grabs or open to re-interpretation and cannot be treated as such. [emphases mine]

Yes: this is precisely why these labyrinthine theological and Canonical issues have taken on a new and centric importance, together with an ineluctable urgency and relevance; something which may not have been the case decades earlier when early apologists such as Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor were writing against the novelties of the Johannine-Pauline Council, as the theological principles pertinent to such discourse had not been examined in their complexity and profundity as clearly as we do so now.

In the wake of the exceeding great obfuscation consequent upon the Johannine-Pauline construct's wicked pretension to promulgate a nova œconomia that is diametrically contrary and mutually exclusive to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church, certain acephalous clerics and their lay disciples appear to have inaugurated their own ecclesiological œconomia wherein formal Apostolicity and duly sanctioned Canonical missions and offices can somehow exist without the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore these selfsame clerics―as a matter of fact, bereft of a Canonical mission together with a duly ordained office, and consequently deprived of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, and thus unable to claim formal Apostolic succession―seem to arrogate to themselves some sort of "extraordinary mission," or tacitly allow their lay disciples to ascribe it to them in neglecting to correct their gross ecclesiological errors.

These clerics are doing more harm than good by neglecting to correct these erring apologists. These Priests and Bishops are especially bound to correct these erring Catholics―whether they err in good will notwithstanding―by reason of the exigencies of fraternal charity and the duties concomitant with the moral virtue of religion: and, above all else, by reason of the grave obligations concomitant with the sacred vocation which these Priests and Bishops have undertook of their own free volition in these tumultuous times (corresponding with the inspirations of divine grace), despite the problematic Canonical ramifications inexorably inherent in this course of action.

If the order of justice and equity cannot be observed literally according to the prescripts and principles of the Sacred Canons, the acephalous clerics must adhere to the greater order of charity with self-effacing magnanimity and relentless self-abnegation, ideally by following the spiritual doctrines set forth by St. Louis-Marie regarding total consecration to Jesus through Mary. However, in order for the order of charity to be observed meritoriously and fruitfully, the reality of things as they are now must be faced and addressed in an earnest and clear manner, according to the doctrines and principles taught by Holy Mother Church as understood by the Roman Pontiffs, Doctors, Fathers, and theologians of times past.

Quote from: Malleus

Yes it is lawful (Epikeia) for it defends the common good - it is only dangerous when it no longer defends the common good as judged by GOD. The Spiritual aspect of our faith is being wholly ignored here so it is more of the same. Think about it this way - the entire reason for the Traditional movement is the simple fact that the common good isnt being defended - nor are the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith given man by GOD specifically for his guidance. This is where the judgement lies.  No False Shepherd can get away with it for long. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Those are the words of Our Lord.  So the real question is not whether or not Epikeia is lawful - the question is whether or not Traditional Bishops use of Epikeia is for the common good in the face of an alternative where following Ecclesiastic Law offers a viable ability to be orthodox. With Modernism infiltrating the hierarchy to such a degree , in my view it is not only prudent but essentially the ONLY Solution.  The dangers of following outright Heretics poses the greater danger than following Orthodox Catholic Bishops of good will. The Public and manifest Heresies of those who supposedly hold eccesiastic power poses the greater threat.

Malleus, the application of epieikeia can either be legitimate or not. Because it is a private judgment, it is dangerous. I agree that it can apply to trad priests and bishops. I'll repeat what I just said a few posts back:

An argument can be made for the application of epieikeia to the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, but this merely provides for the necessity of the sacraments, not the power to rule.

Apostolic succession consists not just in the succession of valid episcopal orders but also in the succession of authority or mission which all hierarchical bishops must receive from or through the Holy See.  
 
 

Malleus : Our disagreement lies here: “The power of naming or instituting bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff (Codex Juris Canonici, 329,2, and 332,1). But, remarks Cajetan in his De Romani Pontificis Institutione (cap. xiii, ad 6), we have to distinguish between the power of the Sovereign Pontiff (auctoritas) and the exercise of this power (executio), which has varied in mode down the centuries.

The Exercise of this power is directly affected by the nature of the Modernist Heresy which has made suspect the legitimacy of the Claimant to the Holy See but in addition the Bishops and so subsequently valid episcopal orders so much so that Apostolic succession in the NO has now come fully into question itself.  It cannot help but. Therefore , it would appear your argument is on far more shaky ground due to the public defection and manifest departure from those offices through many an action.  Therefore ,since these are most certainly not normal times , Epikeia most certainly can be implemented under Divine law not to usurp a power held only by the Holy See , which I believe your argument is founded on but rather. until the Heresy is ended. The Bishops therefore operate as a titular Bishop would - their ability to act supplied  (executio) until the situation is remedied.

pax

In an unrelated matter

It may be interesting to note as well. Do any of you know that Archbishop Thuc was not only present but involved when on November 1 1950  Pope Pius the XII Defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Dogma in Munificentissimus Deus .  His name is chiseled in stone along with all the other Bishops who took part in Rome and affixed to a monument in honor of it.