CathInfo.com

Thanks, Ambrose and SJB. But the wording expressed there, and I looked up this work for context, seem only to talk of matters like confession and marriage as "jurisdictional acts". It is the same way he refers to the "jurisdictional acts" of other Bishops for example, and, it seems a contradiction to say "jurisdictional acts" can confer the state of habitual jurisdiction itself.

Further, as to whether common error suffices to obtain an episcopal see itself, theologians who have written about the Great schism have implied this is not the case, for they have said the true Pope could proactively have given jurisdiction to those of other obediences if he so chose. But if common error sufficed for the Bishops to legitimately acquire the possession of an episcopal office, there would never have been the need for this, since all of those mistaken were in common error!

Moreover, suppose two Bishops of alternate obediences believed themselves to be succeeding to a single see. To whom would it go, if common error was sufficient? Whereas, if we grant that only the Pope as superior of all and possessor of supreme and universal jurisdiction has the power to assign offices, the difficulty disappears.

While I don't agree with it, I think it is a legitimate and thoughtful response from Mr.Lane to the present crisis.

But in any case, even assuming this is true, and then many more than merely 15 Bishops still retain or occupy a see, this very thesis implies, indeed requires, that all of these Bishops believe that Pope Benedict XVI is Pope. So what Msgr.Noort said would still apply.

And well stated, Malleus. I agree with you. "In necessary things, unity. In doubtful things, liberty. In all things, charity" may not have actually been stated by St.Augustine, but I think there is some truth within those words.

Quote

Is the Divine Law that holds no public heretic can be Pope more certain than the supposition that there is some limit to the length of an interregnum.

John, you say I haven't answered this question, but I count at least two places in this thread where I think I have.

In any case, you asked me about relative certainties, so here is what I think

There is an absolute incompatibility between heresy and membership in the Church. That public, or at least notorious, heretics are not members of the Church appears theologically certain.

But as compelling as this consideration is, there are some very powerful impelling factors in the other direction as well.

That the Church is Apostolic is de Fide. That Apostolic succession must be both formal and material, and that one alone would not suffice as you seem to maintain, also appears theologically certain. Finally, when Bishops with an office unanimously throughout the world recognize a man as Pope, Msgr. Noort says this recognition pertains to the ordinary and universal magisterium.

There must be a moral certainty in forming a judgment, and because of these factors, I would think the sedevacantist who recognizes it usually has to resort to forming many other hypotheses in addition, and many of these hypotheses, such as sede-impedism or "Bishop in the woods" seem to be the opposite of what is morally certain.

Therefore, in evaluation what level of certainty the sedevacantist hypothesis can claim, it is the combination of these two hypotheses that must be considered, and that appears to me quite uncertain after all. Even more uncertain than my own theories of why Pope Benedict XVI is still Pope.

Thank you for responding.  I do not think, in regards to the Divine Law, that I am asking you about a "relative" certainty, but an absolute certainty, that a public heretic cannot be pope.  This is more certain than anything you might bring up that is not a certain as Divine Law which is the most certain thing possible.

I think that is all that needs to be said when speaking about the SV reality.  The only sure way out is to deny the Ratzinger is a public heretic.

Do you deny that?

Once we figure that out, we can figure out other things.

Some might say I, as a laymen bind high-minded things on others.

Here are the facts.

1.  Regarding what liturgy, between the pre-1955 and the 1958 I have admitted that I am not sure which is the best or (only choice).

2.  Regarding the attendance of SVs at an una cuм Ratzinger/heretic Mass, when that is the only Mass reasonably available to them, I have maintained that I am not 100% sure either way, if they could lawfully attend such a Mass in good conscience.

3.  Regarding the Traditional Bishops having ordinary jurisdiction, I have repeatedly stated that I am not sure which side is right.

4.  The only thing I have claimed to know for sure is that a public heretic cannot be pope and a valid pope cannot bind a heretical council, doubtful sacraments, an invalid Mass, heretical cannon law on us.  There is nothing too complicated about that.  

So to say I contradict myself by stating facts and admitting I am not sure of the answer to some contraversies would be incorrect.  Further, (obviously this is not in response to you Nischant) I do not engage in mean-spirited attacks as a poster on this thread continues to do.  I may have in the past, but not anymore.  If there is one thing I have learned from the mean-spirited poster on this thread it is that being uncharitable is not Catholic.  

I'll admit that I am somewhat flattered to have my posts so carefully read and taken so seriously by the mean-spirited poster.

But if it is indeed true that bishops are not apostolic unless they have ordinary jurisdiction, which I am starting to believe, then I doubt that our traditional bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction.

I find it to be absurd to insist that the heretical non-bishops and the bishop in the woods is where our apostolic Church can be found.  It is found in our visible orthodox bishops.  I maintain that the Church does not insist on the impossible, and to the extent that it seems she does, our interpretation thereof would be at fault, IMO.  

Some SVs may indeed insist on the bishop in the woods theory, but I am not one of them.  SV and bishop in the woods are not contingent.

What is contingent with SV is the stubborn little fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope or bind on the Church what the conciliar leaders have bound.  The conclusion is obvious.

I do not look for my Church in the woods, the catacombs yes, but not in the woods, having no idea, if or where it might be found, nor do I look for it among the heretical non-bishops in new Church.  I look for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, right where it is, in the authentic successors of the Apostles, our orthodox Bishops from whom we have the valid Sacraments and the true faith.

If it is proven to my satisfaction that the Church teaches to the contrary, I most readily and happily accept.  But I believe if anything is proven in our lifetimes it will be the contrary.