CathInfo.com

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Malleus: John Lane has an interesting opinion as well :

I agree that ordinary jurisdiction is an essential feature of the constitution of the Church. Which means that without it she would not be the Church. Therefore it seems that somewhere in the world there must always be at least one bishop who has it.

Some additional comments on this to put it in context. Anti-sedevacantists often cite this requirement and assert that unless we can identify such a bishop by name our position is essentially in conflict with sound doctrine. But the necessity of identifying such a bishop in fact does not follow - only that we acknowledge that such a bishop or bishops must exist. Just as, for example, it is not required for every Catholic to know many facts about the Church.

What does follow is that if our opponents could prove that there was in fact no such bishop then we would have to revise our theory. The onus is therefore on them, and I welcome any serious attempts they may choose to make to examine the relevant theology, law, and fact, so as to assess the question.

For example, can they be sure that one of the gaoled bishops in China has not remained a Catholic and therefore retained his jurisdiction?

When thinking about this question one must keep in mind the role of supplied jurisdiction in cases of common error. Even many sedevacantists have failed to do so and thus ended up with a slightly skewed view of things. They have done this because, as far as I can tell, they have not understood cuм ex apostolatus correctly, imagining that every provision of it stands, or some erroneous conception such as that. It is doubtful to my mind that even when the bull was published it could have had the effect of nullifying the automatic supply of jurisdiction by Holy Mother Church in cases of common error. I think, on the contrary, that the bull was stating a truth no different from that stated by St. Thomas when he says that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction – meaning, of course, habitual jurisdiction (which is what ordinary jurisdiction is). That is, there is a radical incompatibility between the possession of habitual jurisdiction and the status of non-member of the Church. One must be a member in order to govern in the Church. But (and all theologians seem to grant this) a non-member may exercise supplied jurisdiction on occasion. And this would appear to be the basis for the fairly common opinion that the sacrament of Penance is valid amongst the Greeks.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that an episcopal appointment made by, say, Paul VI, would be valid if the appointee was capable of receiving it. That is, if the appointee was “valid matter” for the appointment. Which is to say, if he was a Catholic. Now, this would have been less likely to be true as the years rolled by after Vatican II. So that fewer and fewer appointments would have been valid, and maybe the last such valid appointment was as long ago as 25 years. But the picture created by such a consideration is very different from the “mathematical” one presented by the sedevacantist who declares that by virtue of cuм ex apostolatus and/or Canon 188:4, every office in the Church was vacated instantly at the close of Vatican II in 1965.

I hope these considerations assist.

We should also not fail to note that the very men who accuse us of holding a theory in conflict with sound doctrine have themselves several points upon which their own stance conflicts with sound doctrine, so that we should give thanks to God that they are coming around to our view on the necessity of believing with the Church.  Further, and as a consequence of this new piety on their part, we may look forward to the day when they cease to use as an excuse for being in conflict with Catholic teaching that the point at issue "has never been defined."  

Yours,
John Lane.

From the link above:

No, but the precise point at issue is:

All jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff to each bishop; it is required by divine law that each bishop receive his jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff. This was disputed in the past, but since the teaching of Pius XII it is certain.

History shows us the various means by which this was done in the different ages, but Pope Pius XII seems to instruct us that the only lawful means are those expressly and explicitly approved by the Roman Pontiff. Thus, we would read the history of the early ages as implying that St. Peter had legislated that bishops were to be chosen by the local clergy, consecrated by their neighbouring bishops, and then approved tacitly or explicitly by the Roman Pontiff after the fact. Later, this means was abrogated and each new episcopal appointment was required to be approved in advance of consecration. There are no exceptions to this in the modern era.

An alternative view is that Pius XII does not mean to teach that during an interregnum an appeal to future approval would be unlawful, since it still respects the divine law that all jurisdiction comes from the pope. I agree with John Daly that the texts seem to make this interpretation impossible.

Whether or not we regard this as a "problem" for traditional Catholics depends upon our understanding of what our bishops are for. If they exist in order to provide sacraments (Holy Orders and Confirmation) and do not pretend to be Successors of the Apostles, then the problem would seem to be academic. Of course, it is true that almost all traditional bishops behave in ways which strongly imply that they do in fact think that they are Successors of the Apostles, and this is a very grave error, but this is a problem for them, not for us.

Quote

And then you are correct: not one of the so-called Traditionalist Bishops have received the office of Successor to the Apostles.

And all of them have, effectively, stolen their orders. Perhaps this is one reason there is so much division amongst them.

Perhaps. But I am not really interested in accusing them of anything or even criticising them. I'm just observing that none of them is this thing which is signified by the title, Successor of the Apostles. They don't carry the Apostolic Succession, and however it survives this period, it will not be via these men.

This article has some useful information, and perhaps we can best think of our traditional bishops as quasi-auxiliary bishops (but without mission): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm

I'm still trying to find out where I'll find the Catholic Church?

This leads me to ask, which is it:

Is our Apostolic Church composed of:

1.  Heretical invalidly consecrated bishops

2.  Heretical validly consecrated bishops (pre-1968)

3.  Hidden non-heretical, retired validly consecrated bishops

4.  Some of the above.

5.  All of the above.

Will anyone please help me on this?