CathInfo.com

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.