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?

In this matter, it appears that the usually meticulously careful John Lane does not cite a source in support of what he says, either in the above excerpt or otherwise.

Mr. Lane has cited his source for this many times on the Bellarmine Forums.  The Catholic University of America Dissertation, Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209.  Miaskiewicz, 1940.

Nishant Writes: Malleus, it's only to be expected that we would differ in our application of the principles, otherwise there wouldn't be such a multitude of opinions. But so long as we agree on the principles, to me that's good enough. Obviously, I hope we've all considered our own position thoughtfully and prayerfully and hold it because we think, all things considered, it is the best explanation. We can't all be right, but at least we can all either be right or err in good faith.

Malleus: I agree.  Keep in mind , the things I post , I post in charity , not to imply that the opinion expressed is the only plausible option. I am of the belief that Traditional Catholics in general do not have an adequate ability to sufficiently answer all of these questions in a definitive , authoritative and lawfully binding manner (although I think some of us may think we can) and as such , we are left with a task of proceeding into , in many cases , unknown territory. Therefore , I believe that some latitude without departing dogmatic precedence is our cross to bear , until such time as this Heresy is defeated. Thank you for your consideration.

Pax

Quote from: Malleus, quoting John Lane,

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 ...

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.

In this matter, it appears that the usually meticulously careful John Lane does not cite a source in support of what he says, either in the above excerpt or otherwise. Anyone who thinks otherwise is free to correct me here. For, appointment to an episcopal office is not a sacramental action that requires jurisdiction for its completion. How, then, can supplied jurisdiction be said to apply to this case? It appears those other sedevacantists, who maintain in my opinion, more correctly, that only those Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII would qualify as still possesing ordinary jurisdiction. There are several other reasons that can be cited in support of the same conclusion.

Of course that raises practical difficulties for those who espouse such a view, for it is known that only a handful of such Bishops, about 15 or so of them, still exist in the world.

John, I think I have answered one or more of your questions, but if you think otherwise, I will copy and paste the relevant portions of my replies immediately following your seven questions later on.

Malleus : Several Theories abound For example :


" What exactly is the Conciliar church? In order to answer that, let's ask ourselves, when was it founded, when did it appear in public, when did it achieve what many or most sedes assert - control of every see, every building, every "office" of the Church in all of their material elements?

I'd like Gabriele to tell us which Church the members of the hierarchy belonged to in, say, 1962, 1966, 1971, and 1980. Was every see possessed materially or de facto by an official of "the Conciliar church" in 1962? Any of the other dates? If so, on what basis is this assertion made?

The "default" attitude of trads, and especially of sedes, is to regard the entire official structure of the Church as Modernist, and then (perhaps) make exceptions. Even Archbishop Lefebvre adopted that view at least late in his life. And it's a legitimate and useful shorthand for the situation in which we have to live. But the theological, canonical, and properly ecclesiological approach must necessarily be the opposite. We start by adhering to the Catholic Church as it certainly was in 1955, just to pick an arbitrary date, and then we recognise that see after see was occupied by open Modernists as the revolution progressed. But many weren't occupied by open Modernists. Many were retained by what appear to have remained clearly Catholic men, such as Cardinal Siri in Genoa.

I certainly understand that for somebody who believes that Vatican II was manifestly heretical, all who accepted its docuмents as Catholic thereby left the Church, so that apart from Bishop de Castro Mayer perhaps, all sees fell vacant de jure at least in circa 1966. But that's not my view, and I doubt too many others really adopt it either. In any case it means that the hierarchy was extinguished at the latest in 1991 when de Castro Mayer passed away. Such a conclusion is heretical.

What seems to have happened is much more diffcult to explain, much more obscure. It seems apparent that it was possible to accept Vatican II, with reservations (as many bishops did), and even the chief reforms that followed in its wake (e.g. the new liturgy) without thereby leaving the Church. This seems to have been the case with Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and several others at least. Perhaps it was the case with hundreds of bishops. If so, where was "the Conciliar church"?

That's harder to answer, in such a scenario. I have an answer, and I have expressed it many times, over many years, and most recently in my article "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church", but I recognise that it isn't a simple answer. That is, I see that for people who are not familiar with ecclesiology, and with proper distinctions in general, it may not be convincing. "

Again my thanks to John Lane

Repost:

Almost all traditional Bishops themselves acknowledge it, I believe. At least the St.Pius X society has frequently written about it, and Archbishop Lefebvre certainly knew it. On the practical and pastoral level, supplied jurisdiction more than suffices.

Positing that the that the acephalous traditionalist clergy have somehow formal Apostolic succession and jurisdiction that is not supplied by the Church herself in the individual instances in which the principles of epikeia would apply without exceeding the measure of prudence is a rash error, to put it mildly.

Sedevacantists such as Mr. Griff Ruby err grossly in ignoring that it is a fact that the sedevacantist acephalous clerics of the traditionalist movement have only supplied jurisdiction: something substantiated by their own assertion that the Apostolic See is vacant or usurped. Without the Roman Pontiff, none of these clerics can be said to have an Canonical office or mission, and they cannot claim formal Apostolic succession, nor habitual jurisdiction.

Consult Msgr. Van Noort's discussion of the crucial difference between the powers of Orders than of Jurisdiction in Christ's Church, translated and edited by Rev. Frs. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957):

I may get slammed up and down for this but that is quite okay.  I say this not doubting Fenton or Van Noort by any stretch of the imagination.  I do not doubt them much more than the infallible pronunciations on "No Salvation Outside the Church".  But look at all the confusion on that issue regarding the proper interpretation.  In fact if there is no salvation outside the Church we better find ourselves an Apostolic Bishop to be united to before we die huh?  

The true Catholics are in this together, SV or not, though some try to split us on the issue when it is obvious that Lefebvre is in just as much "hot water" with the "Apostolic" Church as any traditional bishop.  He died excommunicated by that Church did he not?  But it is the SVs that have no place to stand?  Hmm.

Admitting that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the visibility and apostolicity of the Church is a doctrine is it possible that we may not have interpreted it (the need for a "living" Pope to have approved the consecration of the only orthodox bishops in existence and not hidden somewhere) correctly?

No Dogma has been more clearly pronounced than "No Salvation Outside the Church" yet look how much disagreement is on the interpretation of that Dogma.

We know that Thuc and Lefebvre were validly appointed by a Pope.  They were Apostolic and with the Pope and the Catholic Church.  They consecrated bishops to keep the Church going, as the Pope who approved of their consecrations and any valid Pope would have them do.  Yet we must insist that some living Pope has to have approved of the bishops they consecrated and kept the faith, when none exists in order for the Church to continue in her apostolic form?

I doubt this.  The Church never asks the impossible.  

What people seem to be insisting on here, is that a Pope must exist in order for the Church to exist.  But that is not what the Church has taught.  It is an unfortunate circuмstance, that we and our forefathers brought on ourselves but it is not something that is impossible, which is proven by our current circuмstance.  What would be impossible, it would seem, would be for God to allow no way for our Church to continue, in the only visible orthodox bishops in existense, during an extended interregnum.

I am also pretty sure there are some disciplinary elements involved in jurisdiction.  Yes the bishops get their jurisdiction from a Pope, and they have it, for Pope Pius XII willed the jurisdiction of Thuc, Lefebvre, and the jurisdiction of their successors who held the faith.  Did he will that the apostolicity of the Church end and be in a perpetual state of emergency if no Pope were to succeed him?  Yes or no?  Is that what Christ willed/wills?  

Are you really going to insist on that and say we must agree or be heretical?

I agree with all the Church teaches and contradict nothing she teaches.  But I cannot let my salvation depend on the interpretation of laymen on a forum.  

We do need to go with our formed consciences during this time of no leadership.  We lack the theological training to be the infallible interpreters of canon law and even theology manuals on some topics.  We seek not the fullness of truth on a forum and from laypeople.  

Divine Law is one thing.

But forcing ourselves to accept the interpretation of laymen on forums pertaining to obscure and high-minded theology and canon law, that laypeople never were expected to concern themselves with during normal times is not the way to go.

Others can look to the heretical none-bishops and the old bishop hidden in the woods for the Catholic Church, but from where I sit that Catholic Church is visible and apostolic in her traditional bishops.  

I will add that it is good to see charitableness on this forum.  It is much better to say "I disagree with such and such for this reason" than to say "so and so is crazy or does not know what he is talking about. . . for this reason."

Again, obvious to the charitable Catholics on the forum.