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.

I cannot agree with you, John, for what you are proposing is unthinkable. For it is the principal error of especially the last 50 years to think that doctrines ought "to be adapted to the circuмstances and needs of our times". Holding that crystal clear formulations of those doctrines by holy and pious minds of the past need to be "reinterpreted" as if they were obscure and in need of less precise and more ambiguous assertions (another absolute favorite of some persons in the last 50 years) and this by the same untrained laymen you talk about today appears to me to be merely another form of this.

By the way, I don't think there was any serious theological controversy on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus even in the last 300 years before the present day, which on the other hand doesn't deserve to be classified as such. All traditional theologians taught baptism of desire and blood as at least theologically certain truths.

Speaking of which, when I mentioned degrees of certainty in different propositions, and the proportionate assent owed to each by the faithful, this was what I had in mind. It's from a sedevacantist site reproducing a traditional work. "Theologically certain", "ecclesiastical faith" etc these are notes describing the varying grades of certainty. Please use the technical terminology so we could understand each other better.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

As if that were not enough, you would also be at odds with almost every traditional Bishop in the world when you say, "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."

Please show me which traditional Bishops today even claim they possess ordinary jurisdiction. Even Fr.Cekada does not assert this and frankly knows the opposite is true and takes it as a given.

If people hypothesize various possibilities like a Bishop in the woods today, we could not say with certainty that they are mistaken. But if someone contradicts the Church and says, like Fr.Cekada does, even if not in so many words, that the Church can cease to be Apostolic, it is certain that a position that entails that is incorrect and no Catholic can be morally obliged to hold such a position. If you are saying material succession is sufficient, and the essential form of legitimate authorization from a superior is to be disregarded, I think the same applies.

I would not say this otherwise, but I also think you judge Archbishop Lefebvre very rashly in describing his action as "schismatic on its face" and against what you assert, it could be argued that the very act of attempting to confer ordinary jurisdiction on another Bishop could pertain to the essence of a schismatic act, since it constitutes an usurpation of authority one does not and cannot possess as  a mere Bishop.

And this Archbishop Lefebvre never did and was very careful to say so, and all SSPX Bishops have said so, and neither have sedevacantist Bishops at least in the CMRI done so and they know it, but what you are proposing apparently would have me believe they have done so or ought to have done so.

Finally, regarding what you posted about Hobbledehoy, to answer with scripture, no one has made me a judge between you. I don't "take a side" in that matter except to deny your characterization of him in your post toward me because from what I've seen, I can scarcely think of someone less uncharitable than Hobbledehoy, who has freely and graciously taken the time to post countless wondrous spiritual writings on this forum which is of so much more worth to all of us than any theological disputation and I know has proven so edifying to me on many occasions and I'm sure for several other souls, so given what you addressed to me above, I would be remiss in not saying that, for that has only been my honest experience.

And another opinion I came across:

" Yes, I am sure there are bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction. I am absolutely certain that there are bishops with jurisdiction, but I do not restrict the date to 1968. We have much to thank John Lane for in researching the concept of supplied jurisdiction in the appointments by anti-popes, when they are almost universally accepted, and due to the common error of the act. The sources of these bishops may be:

1. Appointed by Pius XII (habitual jurisdiction of the Pope)
2. Appointed by John XXIII (possibly by habitual jurisdiction, but if not, then by supplied jurisdiction)
3. Appointed by Paul VI (possibly appointed by habitual jurisdiction at least until Dec. 7, 1965, but certainly by supplied jurisdiction). After Dec. 7, 1965, I have no doubt remaining that Paul VI could not have been pope. From Dec. 7, 1965 all bishops appointed by Paul VI who kept the Faith would have been lawful through supplied jurisdiction. (As an aside, for what its worth, I hold John XXIII's claim in extreme doubt, and for myself, I believe Paul VI was never a pope.)
4. The same principle applies to the bishops appointed by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Although bishops in the West, would have lacked validity due to the destruction of the rite, the Eastern Catholic bishops did not have that change.
5. Due to this, we may conclude that any eastern bishops who have the faith, and are recognized by common error of the faithful, may have habitual jurisdiction due to the act of their appointment being supplied.

In regards to all of the men mentioned here, the question which will determine if they are lawful members of the hierarchy is whether they have kept the Faith."

Quote from: Malleus 01

I have a tendency to agree with this portion.   IMO - splitting hairs over the theological interpretation in normal times and trying to apply the same criteria in a vastly different scenario is not what Msgr Van Noort envisioned and as such - that interpretation has to be considered when we have orthodox Popes of unquestioned legitimacy.  But that isnt what we have today.   Even the most staunch Traditional Catholic has to admit irregularities and like it or not these irregularities do in fact call into question aspects of theological interpretations heretofore not experienced.

To say Msgr Van Noorts insistance on defining Apostolicity as a regimented and rock solid principle that can never be interpreted other than as presented by Hobs , is in my mind most certainly not what was intended for times such as the ones we now find ourselves in.   If we were having this discussion in 1950 - I believe there would be no discussion. [emphasis mine]

Can you clarify as to why the manner in which I am presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort and other theologians is wrong? Or, rather, how am I exactly presenting the teachings of Msgr. Van Noort?

The pages were not merely cited, but physically scanned and uploaded so that you may read them for yourself.

Just because the Johannine-Pauline structures cannot be identified with the Ecclesia Christi, does not necessitate resorting to neo-historicist and novel interpretations of what the theologians have taught in order to assuage those doubts that continue to haunt us.

It is not for us to revise and reformat the doctrines of the Church to suit our times.

Inadvertently, such process of cognition and reasoning is akin to what the modernists wrote regarding the "organic evolution" of dogma and the "hermeneutic of continuity" that is so often cited nowadays by conservative circles within the Johannine-Pauline construct.

I am not implying that you yourself (the individual Catholic who posts as "Malleus 01" on CathInfo) have intended to do this, but this certainly has been done by both clerics and laymen in the sedevacantist movement.

The only recourse we have is to study what the theologians have taught as doctrines of Holy Mother Church, if one is to comment at all upon what you regard as minutiae of theological controversy.

As another Catholic has wisely written on this thread:

Quote from: Nishant

Again, these are Catholic doctrines. They are expressly taught by the Popes, they are universally admitted by the theologians and most clearly of all, they are near unanimously known to traditional Bishops today.

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.

If you disagree, please cite some traditional authoritative sources from the past to the effect of what you are saying. [emphases mine]

The nova œconomia of the Johannine-Pauline modernists cannot at all be construed as warranting the creation of another nova œconomia: redefining and re-interpreting what the magisterium of Holy Mother Church proposes for our assent, particularly regarding the Apostolicity and Unity of the one and true Church of Christ, can only bring about error and confusion. Instead of defending Holy Mother Church in the pristine integrity of her doctrines, some Catholics, in a rash reaction to the novelties of modernists, have (inadvertently, and in some cases with full deliberation) concocted further novelties whereby they humiliate and vilify these same doctrines in a most lamentable manner.

Those who are more puzzled than edified by discussion over theological matters ought to avoid such discussion or refrain from pandering to pedagogues who have arrogated themselves the missio extraordinaria to be the apologists for a faith they do not seem to understand themselves, as shown in the errors they commit. It is best to discuss matters regarding the spiritual life or morality if one cannot handle the complexities and nuances of theological controversy.

By the way, stricte dicitur, this and all other discussion here cannot be regarded as "theological controversy" properly so called, because we are not theologians nor can pretend to come even close.

We are just sharing notes and "thinking out loud" in an endeavor to help each other out in understanding what is presently occurring. No one has all the answers. At least I don't.

Holy Mother Church alone, through the Fathers, Saints and approved theologians, can guide us through this mess precisely because Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted His Church for this very purpose. Just as He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother and illustrious co-Operatrix in the work of the redemption and sanctification of souls, whilst He in His unfathomable omnipotence could have chosen another manner of establishing His œconomy of salvation -- so has Our Lord chosen the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He Himself has established to be our sole illuminatress and mistress in the way of salvation and perfection.

Malleus: Thank you for your interpretation and strong opinion.  Unlike Lover of Truth , I do not care to agree or to disagree with the points you have raised.   The fulcrum of your entire argument still assumes the presence and orthodoxy of Bishops in the Post Counciliar Church. Msgr Van Noort wrote at a time when this was not an issue. Once again - to assume that a worldwide Modernist Heresy of the very same Type that St Pope Pius the X outlined in Pacendi Domenici Gregis as a danger to the Catholic Faith itself - to see it unfold before our very eyes in living color in the Catholic Hierarchy itself  - the manifestations of these very same Heresies , not only present but actually being promoted by a man who claims to sit on the Chair of St Peter - the very same Chair that Pope St Pius the X himself was teaching from - and by those who claim to occupy the various bishoprics throughout the entire world and then to retreat into theology manuals in a vain attempt to explain away the Elephant in the room is naive in my opinion.  Scripture does say that some strain the gnat and swallow the camel.  And it is for that reason that I feel it sometimes counter productive to take a strong stand like both you and Lover of Truth do.

I am fully aware of your position , Lover of Truths position , Nishants position et al , but really , the issue is never going to lie or be solved with lay interpretation of theology.  

This issue remains in the domain of Aceticism and as such , the answers for Traditional Catholics lie there. You can tell me every thing you want to tell me about the writings of Msgr Van Noort - and I enjoy reading your dissertations. But tell me , why did The Cure of Ars , a farmer in his youth , with little formal education , have actual dialogue with the Blessed Virgin Mary herself?  Because he fasted , slept on cold stone floors , ate a single potatoe a day , gave away to the poor the possessions of value parishioners gave to him and as a result , became a great and Holy Saint.

My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.

Pax

Quote from: Malleus

My friend , we disagree , but nonetheless , our answers do not lie in further argumentation.

About what do you disagree? Do you believe these multitude of trad bishops are successors to the Apostles?

Malleus: If they have Valid Orders and Apostolic Lineage Indeed I do.   Our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid .   The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel.   Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.  I believe that most Traditional Catholics are in fact merely Catholics.   That much of this divisiveness is ego driven and not in the spirit of Unity which of course is not in keeping with the Mark of Unity in Holy Mother the Church.

I am certain that this view may be unpopular with some , but then , I am not demanding that anyone follow me in it - but rather that they practice Faith Hope and Charity - receive the Holy Sacraments - Pray the Holy Rosary - Wear the Miraculous Medal - and the Brown Scapular - give to the poor, comfort widows and orphans - the lonely the sick, and the dying, fast , do penance , mortifications , and quit worrying about who is or isn't winning the argument. You see , I am unconcerned with who wins the Hobbledehoy / Lover of Truth argument fest , or in making judgement on which one seems to be on the right course .  Can I instead simply say you both have stated your positions well - neither has won anything - both are Catholic - and the progressives , who would like all of us dead regardless of which side of the argument we side with , are daily gaining more and more political power in the world which ultimately may cost all of us our very lives while we quibble about this ?  In the grand scheme of things , uniting against them may avert this.   So you tell me , which course of action is most prudent?

We are our own worst enemy.

Pax

 

Malleus 01 wrote:

Quote

our Lord Jesus Christ established Holy Orders long before there were theology manuals dictating specific rules meant only to protect from outside schism or apostasy that some here use to exclude creating the very disunity these rules were meant to avoid .  The very nature of this discussion , in my view , seeks to strain the gnat and swallow the camel.  Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for this very behavior - that they sought the Letter of the Law not so as to Serve Almighty GOD - in the Spirit in which the law was given but rather themselves.

Many heresies and errors throughout the history of the Church were a debate over one words or several words.  Words signify a meaning, if the meaning is an error against the purity of the Church's doctrine, then it must rightfully be condemned.

I can see in you that you do not grasp this, and you do not need to understand every fine point of theology to be a good Catholic, but just leave it at this:  Apostolic succession must be transmitted through the Pope.  By this, we are not talking about the validity of the orders of the bishops, but whether they are the Apostle's successors.  There is a difference.

By stating the truth on this matter, we are not acting like Pharisees.  The Pharisees placed burdens on others by their harsh ideas, but were soft on themselves, as Our Lord called them hypocrites.  In this case, we are Catholics upholding the purity of the deposit of Faith.  Second, in this case, no one is denying what we are saying, they are only confused about it.  I am not aware of any Catholic that says the traditional bishops are the successors of the Apostles.  

Bishop
Ecclesial office


————
* Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
Bishop (A. S. Bishop, Bisceop, Ger. Bischof; from Gr. episkopos, an overseer, through Lat. episcopas; It. vescovo; O. Fr. vesque; Fr. eveque. See Murray, "New Eng. Dict.", Oxford, 1888, I, 878), the title of an ecclesiastical dignitary who possesses the fullness of the priesthood to rule a diocese as its chief pastor, in due submission to the primacy of the pope. It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ's will, they are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, ch. iv; can. vi, vii. See Apostolic College.)

in Addition :

It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445). Another question also discussed is whether the potestas magisterii, or teaching authority, is a consequence of the power of order or of jurisdiction (Sagmiiller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Freiburg, 1900-04, 24-25). Whatever the conclusion, teaching authority will here be ranked among the powers of jurisdiction. The teaching authority of the bishop and his governing authority (potestas regiminis) will now be successively considered, the latter comprising the legislative, dispensative, judicial, coercive, and administrative powers.

Bishops have also a "delegated jurisdiction", which they exercise in the name of the Holy See; this power is granted to them a jure or ab homine. Ecclesiastical law frequently accords to bishops delegated powers; but it would be wrong to say, for instance, that every power of dispensation granted by a general law of the Church is a delegated one. Such power is perhaps quite as often an ordinary power. But when the law accords a power of jurisdiction to the bishop, tanquam Sedis apostolicae delegatus, it is a delegated power that he receives. (See, for example, Council of Trent, Sess. V, De ref., ch. i, ii; Sess. VI, De ref., ch. iii; Sess. VII, De ref., ch. vi,. viii, xiv, etc.) Writers do not agree as to the nature of the power accorded to the bishop also as delegate of the Apostolic See, etiam tanquam sedis apostolicae delegatus. Some maintain that in this case the bishop has at the same time both ordinary and delegated power, but only relative to such persons as are subject to his jurisdiction (Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicuм. universum, Paris, 1864, tit. xxix, 37); others contend that in this case the bishop has ordinary jurisdiction with regard to his subjects, and only a delegated one with regard to those who are exempt (Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, Berlin, 1869, I, 178; Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes, Graz, 1886, I, 421, note 36); others again maintain that the bishop has at the same time both an ordinary and a delegated power over his subjects, and a delegated power over those who are exempt (Wernz, II, 816); finally, others see in this formula only a means of removing any obstacles which might prevent the bishop from using the power accorded to him (Santi, Praelect. jur. can., New York, 1898, I, 259). The delegated powers ab homine are at the present of very great importance, especially in missionary countries. The Apostolic Penitentiary grants those which are only concerned with the forum of conscience. The others are granted by the Congregation of the Propaganda. They are called facultates habituates, because not granted for a determined individual case. These faculties are no longer accorded only to the bishop in his own person but to the ordinaries, that is to say, to the bishop, to his successor, to the administrator pro tem of the diocese, and to the vicar-general, to vicars Apostolic, prefects, etc. (Declaration of the Holy Office, November 26, 1897, April 22, 1898, June 25, 1898, September 5, 1900; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1897-98, XXX, 627, 702; 1898-99, XXXI, 120; 1900-01, XXXIII, 225). As a general rule the bishop can subdelegate these powers, provided that the faculties do not forbid it (Holy Office, December 16, 1898; Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1898-99, XXXI, 635). For further information see Putzer-Konings, "Commentarium in facultates apostolicas" (5th ed., New York, 1898). On the other hand, the bishop can always ask the Holy See for such delegated powers as are necessary in the administration of his diocese. The bishop is also the ordinary and habitual executor of the dispensations which the Holy See grants in foro externo, i.e. for public use or application.


Pax